102810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 71 FR 50998 (Aug. 28, 2006). 

2 In 2012, NHTSA proposed to convert part 563’s 

‘‘if equipped’’ requirements for EDRs into a new 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

mandating the installation of EDRs in most light 

vehicles. The NPRM did not propose making any 

changes to the current EDR regulation’s 

performance requirements, including those for the 

required data elements (77 FR 74144 (Dec. 13, 

2012)). In 2019, NHTSA withdrew that proposal 

due to the near universal installation of EDRs on 

light vehicles (84 FR 2804 (Feb. 8, 2019)). 

3Part 563 requires EDR data to survive the crash 

tests in FMVSS Nos. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash 

protection,’’ and 214, ‘‘Side impact protection.’’ 

4For the purposes herein, we are using the term 

‘‘downloading’’ to refer to the process by which 

data are retrieved from an EDR. When downloading 

the data on an EDR, the original data set remains 

intact and unchanged in the memory banks of the 

EDR. NHTSA has also used the term ‘‘imaging’’ in 

other documents to refer to the same process. 

NHTSA uses imaging and downloading 

interchangeably. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 563 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2024–0084] 

RIN 2127–AM12 

Event Data Recorders 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

regulations regarding event data 

recorders (EDRs) to extend the EDR 

recording period for timed data metrics 

from 5 seconds of pre-crash data at a 

frequency of 2 Hz to 20 seconds of precrash data at a frequency of 10 Hz. This 

final rule responds to the mandate of the 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act (FAST Act) to establish the 

appropriate recording period in 

NHTSA’s EDR regulation. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective January 17, 2025. 

Compliance Dates: The compliance 

date is September 1, 2027. Vehicles 

produced by small-volume or limitedline manufacturers must comply with 

this final rule on or after September 1, 

2029. Altered vehicles and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages 

must comply with this final rule if 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2030. 

Petition for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received not later than February 

3, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

number set forth above (NHTSA–2024– 

0084) and be submitted to the 

Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. Note that all petitions received 

will be posted without change to 

https://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, at the address given under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, you should submit a copy, 

from which you have deleted the 

claimed confidential business 

information, to Docket Management at 

the address given above. When you send 

a submission containing information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information, you should include a cover 

letter setting forth the information 

specified in our confidential business 

information regulation (49 CFR part 

512). Please see further information in 

the Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

section of this preamble. 

Privacy Act: The petition will be 

placed in the docket. Anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

documents received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

https://www.transportation.gov/ 

individuals/privacy/privacy-act-systemrecords-notices. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov, or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical issues: Mr. Joshua 

McNeil, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, Telephone: (202) 366–1810, 

Facsimile: (202) 493–2739. 

For legal issues: Ms. Natasha D. Reed, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Telephone: 

(202) 366–2992, Facsimile: (202) 366– 

3820. The mailing address for these 

officials is: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Overview of the Event Data Recorder 

Technology and Regulatory History 

B. The Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Developments Culminating in the 

NPRM 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

C. Requirements of the Final Rule 

D. Lead Time 

IV. Final Rule and Response to Comments 

A. Recording Duration and Sampling Rate 

B. EDR Components 

C. Additional Data Elements 

D. Privacy Considerations 

E. International Harmonization 

F. Other Considerations 

V. Summary of Estimated Costs and Benefits 

A. Benefits 

B. Costs 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

I. Executive Summary 

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 563 

(part 563) in 2006, setting forth 

requirements for data elements, data 

capture and format, data retrieval, and 

data crash survivability of EDRs.1 Part 

563 does not mandate EDRs on vehicles, 

but is instead an ‘‘if equipped’’ standard 

applying only to light vehicles required 

to have frontal air bags that a 

manufacturer chooses to voluntarily 

equip with EDRs.2 Part 563 ensures all 

EDRs subject to the regulation capture 

the same core set of data elements in a 

crash, standardizes the parameters 

(format, duration, etc.) of captured data 

elements, and sets minimum 

requirements for data survivability.3

Part 563 further requires that 

manufacturers of vehicles with EDRs 

subject to part 563 make commercially 

available a tool for the purpose of 

downloading 4 the data collected by the 

EDR. 

This rulemaking amends current 

NHTSA regulations regarding EDRs 

under part 563 by extending the capture 

and recording period for timed data 

metrics from 5 seconds of pre-crash data 

at a sample rate of 2 Hz to 20 seconds 

of pre-crash data at a sample rate of 10 

Hz (i.e., an increase from 2 samples per 

second to 10 samples per second). The 

objective of this amendment is to 

capture and record the appropriate 

amount of data to provide sufficient 

vehicle-related data to assist 

investigations of the cause of motor 

vehicle crashes. This rulemaking is 

issued in response to a statutory 

mandate under section 24303 of the 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act (FAST Act), Pub. L. 119–14 (Dec. 4, 

2015). 

The increased sample rate required by 

this final rule will provide crash 

investigators a better understanding of 

the sequence of pre-crash actions, and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102811 

5Flash memory is an electronic computer 

memory storage medium that can be electrically 

erased and reprogrammed and can retain stored 

information even when power is removed. 

6 71 FR 50998 (Aug. 28, 2006). 

7NHTSA proposed a recording duration of 8 

seconds in the NPRM for what became the 2006 

final rule (69 FR 32942 (June 14, 2004)). However, 

NHTSA decided to reduce the duration in response 

to public comments (71 FR 50998, 51020 (Aug. 28, 

2006)). 

8 87 FR 37289 (June 22, 2022). See supra note 2 

and accompanying text. The 2012 NPRM estimated 

that about 92 percent of model year 2010 light 

vehicles had some EDR capability. 

9Pub. L. 114–94, 129 Stat. 1312, December 4, 

2015. 

10 Id. 

the increased recording duration will 

provide more details on actions taken 

prior to crashes. Specifically, with the 

implementation of this final rule’s 

increased recording duration, actions 

such as running a stop sign or red light 

could be captured in full and included 

in crash reconstruction when 

supplemented with roadway and traffic 

control information. The increased 

recorded duration could also help 

capture any corrective maneuvers taken 

by a vehicle prior to an initial road 

departure. The increased data recording 

frequency required by this final rule 

will help clarify the interpretation of 

recorded pre-crash information, 

including braking and steering actions 

taken by a vehicle. It will also help 

reduce potential uncertainty related to 

the relative timing of recorded data 

elements, and assist with the 

identification of potential pedal 

misapplication. 

II. Background 

A. Overview of the Event Data Recorder 

Technology and Regulatory History 

Event data recorders are devices 

installed in a vehicle to capture and 

record technical information 

immediately before and during a crash 

on the status and operation of vehicle 

systems. An EDR reserves a random 

access memory (RAM) buffer the size of 

one EDR record to locally store data 

before the data are written to memory. 

The data are typically stored using 

Electrically Erasable Programmable 

Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) or data 

flash memory,5 both of which are types 

of non-volatile memory. The RAM 

buffer is typically embedded in the 

microprocessor, a component of the 

EDR that may require an upgrade if the 

processing capabilities are insufficient 

to meet the new EDR data capture 

requirements. During a crash, one or 

more capacitors are used as backup 

power (energy reserve) to power the 

EDR, as the main battery is assumed to 

be cut off. The capacitor(s) must have 

sufficient energy to power the entire 

transfer of data. These components are 

housed in packaging and manufacturer 

development and validation stages are 

aimed at ensuring the EDR functions as 

intended. 

EDR event data are permanently 

recorded at the end of a specified event. 

In most cases, data are captured during 

events meeting a pre-determined 

threshold of severity or in events severe 

enough to cause air bag deployment. 

This information can aid crash 

investigators in assessing the 

performance of specific safety 

equipment, including event air bag 

deployment strategies, air bag operation, 

and event severity. Captured 

information can also help NHTSA and 

others identify potential opportunities 

for safety improvements in current and 

future vehicles and implement more 

effective safety regulations. It may also 

help first responders assess the severity 

of a crash, estimate the probability of 

serious injury in vehicles equipped with 

Advanced Automatic Crash Notification 

(AACN) systems, and improve defect 

investigations and crash data collection 

quality. 

NHTSA established 49 CFR part 563 

(part 563) on August 28, 2006, setting 

forth requirements for the accuracy, 

collection, storage, survivability, and 

retrievability of data in vehicles 

equipped with EDRs.6 Tables I and II of 

part 563 detail the various data elements 

covered under the standard. Table I lists 

15 data elements all EDRs subject to part 

563 are required to record, along with 

the recording interval (duration) and 

sampling frequency. Table II lists data 

elements that EDRs subject to part 563 

are not required to record, but that are 

subject to part 563 if they are recorded. 

Two data elements in Table II are listed 

as ‘‘if equipped,’’ meaning if a vehicle 

has the specified equipment, the 

specified information must be recorded. 

Table II also provides the recording 

interval (duration) and sampling 

frequency for each listed data element. 

In addition, all data elements in Tables 

I and II must be reported according to 

the range, accuracy, and resolution in 

Table III of part 563. Relevant to this 

final rule, there are currently seven data 

elements in Table I and Table II that 

must be captured for a duration of 5 

seconds prior to the crash (speed, 

engine throttle, service brake, engine 

RPM, ABS activity, stability control, and 

steering input). NHTSA established this 

5-second duration after concluding this 

length would ensure the usefulness of 

the data in crash reconstruction while 

minimizing the risk of overtaxing an 

EDR’s microprocessor during the data 

capture process, which could cause a 

malfunction resulting in data loss.7

Part 563 became fully effective on 

September 1, 2012. Since this time, the 

adoption of EDRs has been nearly 

universal, as NHTSA’s internal analysis 

estimates 99.5 percent of model year 

2021 passenger cars and other vehicles 

with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) of 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 

pounds) or less are equipped with part 

563 compliant EDRs.8

B. The Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act 

This rulemaking addresses a statutory 

mandate under section 24303 of the 

FAST Act, which requires NHTSA to 

‘‘submit to Congress a report that 

contains the results of a study 

conducted by the Administrator to 

determine the amount of time event data 

recorders installed in passenger motor 

vehicles should capture and record for 

retrieval vehicle-related data in 

conjunction with an event in order to 

provide sufficient information to 

investigate the cause of motor vehicle 

crashes.’’ 9 The FAST Act further 

provides that, within two years of 

submitting this report to Congress, 

NHTSA ‘‘shall promulgate regulations 

to establish the appropriate period 

during which event data recorders 

installed in passenger motor vehicles 

may capture and record for retrieval 

vehicle-related data to the time 

necessary to provide accident 

investigators with vehicle-related 

information pertinent to crashes 

involving such motor vehicles.’’ 10 This 

final rule promulgates regulations to 

establish appropriate EDR data 

recording durations as mandated under 

the FAST Act. 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

A. Developments Culminating in the 

NPRM 

To meet the agency’s initial obligation 

under section 24303 of the FAST Act, 

NHTSA contracted with researchers at 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University (Virginia Tech) to conduct a 

study (the ‘‘EDR Duration Study’’) to 

determine the amount of time EDRs 

should capture and record information 

to provide sufficient vehicle-related data 

to support investigation of the cause of 

motor vehicle crashes. The study 

focused on three crash types that could 

potentially benefit from more than the 

currently required 5 seconds of precrash data: rear-end, intersection, and 

roadway departure crashes. These three 

crash modes were selected because they 

comprised approximately 70 percent of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102812 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

11 Derived from the NHTSA report ‘‘Target Crash 

Population for Crash Avoidance Technologies in 

Passenger Vehicles,’’ March 2019, DOT HS 812 653. 

12Event Data Recorder Duration Study [Appendix 

to a Report to Congress. Report No. DOT HS 813 

082B], 2022, https://doi.org/10.21949/1530244. 

13From Phase I, the EDR failed to record the 

initiation of steering in 80% of rear-end crashes, 

64% of intersection crashes, and 88% of road 

departure crashes. 

14Phase II used data from two previously 

conducted naturalistic driving studies: a 2002 100- 

car study conducted by Virginia Tech, and the 2016 

Second Strategic Highway Research Program 

(SHRP–2) NDS conducted by the Transportation 

Research Board of The National Academies. 

15This duration is influenced heavily by the 

inclusion of intersection crashes. Without the 

inclusion of intersection crashes, 12.3 seconds of 

data would encompass the 90th percentile 

recording duration for rear-end and road departure 

crashes. 

16The range of time shown for intersection 

crashes was derived from intersections with 

different numbers of lanes. The lower bound 

represents time for 2-lane intersections and the 

upper bound represents time for 7-lane 

intersections. 

17The 2018 report ‘‘Event Data Recorder Study’’ 

is available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/reports-tocongress. An appendix to the report to Congress 

was later published in March 2022 with more 

details on the EDR Duration Study. See ‘‘Event Data 

Recorder Duration Study [Appendix to a Report to 

Congress. Report No. DOT HS 813 082B],’’ 2022, 

https://doi.org/10.21949/1530244. 

18 87 FR 37289 (June 22, 2022) 

19 In 2010, NHTSA began to obtain data from 

Toyota EDRs as part of its inquiry into allegations 

of unintended acceleration, and as a follow-up to 

the recalls of some Toyota models for sticking and 

entrapped accelerator pedals. The Toyota 

unintended acceleration study (NHTSA Report No. 

NHTSA–NVS–2011–ETC, ‘‘Technical Assessment 

of Toyota electronic Throttle Control (ETC) 

Systems,’’ January 2011) helped determine the root 

cause of each crash. 

all passenger vehicle crashes 

annually,11 require relatively longer 

maneuvering times, and represent the 

most prevalent and relatively severe 

crashes based on fatalities. 

The EDR Duration Study 12 took place 

in two phases. Phase I sought to 

estimate how frequently EDRs fail to 

record sufficient pre-crash data. Phase I 

did not analyze the amount of pre-crash 

data required to capture crash causation 

beyond the 5 seconds currently required 

under part 563. Analyzing cases in the 

National Automotive Sampling SystemCrashworthiness Data System (NASS– 

CDS) database, Phase I determined part 

563’s current recording duration of 5 

seconds failed to capture the initiation 

of all driver crash avoidance maneuvers 

for each of the three crash types studied. 

Evasive steering initiation represented 

the largest percentage of avoidance 

maneuvers not captured by the 5 second 

recording duration in all three crash 

types.13 The study concluded the 5- 

second recording duration may be 

insufficient in many cases to determine 

the factors leading to a crash or to 

capture the pre-crash actions taken by a 

driver to avoid collision, potentially 

resulting in crash investigators having 

insufficient crash-related EDR 

information to determine crash 

causation. 

Phase II of the EDR Duration Study 

sought to determine what recording 

duration would provide crash 

investigators with sufficient data to 

determine crash causation. The study 

analyzed data from naturalistic driving 

studies (NDS) 14 to understand the 

complete duration (5 seconds or greater) 

of driver pre-crash actions in the 

following three types of crashes: rearend, intersection, and road departure. 

Phase II found that 20 seconds of precrash data would encompass the 90th 

percentile recording duration required 

for the three crash modes and crash 

avoidance maneuvers analyzed. This 

conclusion means that, based on the 

cumulative distributions for all three 

crash modes and crash avoidance 

maneuvers analyzed, 20 seconds of precrash data recording captures the driver 

pre-crash actions in 90 percent of the 

dataset.15 Table 1 summarizes the 

relevant Phase II findings. A more 

detailed summary of the EDR Duration 

Study can be found in the NPRM 

associated with this rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF RECORDING DURATION NECESSARY TO CAPTURE PRE-CRASH ACTIONS FROM EDR DURATION

STUDY

Driver pre-crash maneuver 

Duration of pre-crash action (seconds) 

50th percentile 90th percentile 

Rear-End Crash: 

Time to Closest Approach .................................................................................................................... 4.5 12.3 

Intersection Crash: 

Approach + Traversal ........................................................................................................................... 12.6–15.1 16 16.0–18.6 

Road Departure Crash: * 

Drift out of lane to Recovery ................................................................................................................ 3.2 6.0 

* Lane excursion events were examined in the 100-car NDS. 

On September 28, 2018, following 

completion of the EDR Duration Study, 

NHTSA submitted a Report to Congress 

summarizing the study results to the 

House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce and the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

as required by section 24303 of the 

FAST Act.17

B. Summary of the NPRM 

On June 22, 2022, pursuant to section 

24303 of the FAST Act, NHTSA issued 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to amend part 563.18 The 

NPRM relied on the findings of the EDR 

Duration Study and information 

gathered from NHTSA’s defects 

investigation experience, which has 

demonstrated EDR data can be used to 

assist the agency in assessing whether a 

vehicle operated properly at the time of 

an event can help detect undesirable 

operations.19 Based on these findings 

and information, the NPRM proposed 

extending the recording interval and 

data sample rate of pre-crash data 

elements under part 563 from 5 seconds 

of pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz 

to 20 seconds of pre-crash data at a 

frequency of 10 Hz (i.e., an increase 

from 2 samples per second to 10 

samples per second). The seven 

frequency-based pre-crash data elements 

affected by the proposed amendments 

are: 

• Three required data elements in 

Table I of part 563: ‘‘Speed, Vehicle 

Indicated,’’ ‘‘Engine throttle, % full (or 

accelerator pedal, % full),’’ and ‘‘Service 

brake, on/off,’’ 

• Four ‘‘if recorded’’ data elements in 

Table II of part 563: ‘‘Engine RPM,’’ 

‘‘ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged),’’ 

‘‘Stability control (on, off, engaged),’’ 

and ‘‘Steering input.’’ 

In support of the proposal, the NPRM 

explained that the EDR Duration Study 

concluded extending part 563’s 

recording duration from 5 to 20 seconds 

would help capture critical pre-crash 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102813 

20Table I in part 563 currently requires an EDR 

to capture pre-crash data at a sample rate of 2 

samples per second (Hz). The same sample rate 

applies to Table II elements of engine revolutions 

per minute (RPM), anti-lock braking system (ABS) 

status, electronic stability control (ESC) status, and 

steering input. 

21While true time synchronization of data 

originating from the vehicle network may not be 

possible, the increased sample rate for pre-crash 

data elements may reduce the potential uncertainty 

related to the relative timing of data elements, 

specifically for correlating the driver’s commands 

and the vehicle’s performance. 

22NHTSA–2022–0021. 

data. The NPRM also proposed 

increasing the EDR sampling frequency 

of pre-crash data from 2 Hz to 10 Hz,20

explaining that an increased sampling 

rate, in addition to an increased precrash recording duration, is critical in 

determining crash causation. In support 

of the proposal, the NPRM explained 

that in some crash circumstances (e.g., 

brake application and release or rapid 

reversals in steering input of less than 

0.5 seconds), 2 Hz may be insufficient 

to identify crash causation factors, as it 

is possible for an EDR recording at 2 Hz 

to miss rapid vehicle control inputs. 

Thus, although more crash causation 

information would be captured with the 

proposed 20 second time duration, this 

data could be misinterpreted without a 

refinement and increase in the EDR 

sampling acquisition frequency. 

The NPRM further explained an 

improved data sampling rate is needed 

because of how fast the sequence of 

events leading to crashes can happen 

and how fast the vehicle’s systems need 

to activate in response to such events, 

such as crash avoidance technologies 

activation (e.g., antilock braking system 

and electronic stability control). In 

support of increasing the EDR sampling 

frequency of pre-crash data from 2 Hz to 

10 Hz, the NPRM noted the current 

sampling rate of 2 Hz is well below the 

timing necessary to understand the 

performance and effectiveness of such 

systems. Additionally, it explained the 

EDR output for the pre-crash data 

elements is not synchronized,21 even at 

the sampling rate of 2 Hz, which could 

result in uncertainty when comparing 

data at specific points in time with 

precision. Finally, the NPRM pointed 

out a greater sampling rate for the precrash data elements would reduce 

potential uncertainty related to the 

relative timing of data elements, 

specifically for correlating the driver’s 

commands and the vehicle’s 

performance. 

In discussing the benefits of the 

proposal, the NPRM stated increasing 

the recording time for the pre-crash data 

would help ensure that data on the 

initiation of pre-crash actions and 

maneuvers is captured for most crashes. 

The NPRM further explained that 

increased data will enhance the 

usefulness of the recorded information 

and potentially lead to further 

improvements in the safety of current 

and future vehicles. The NPRM 

acknowledged the proposed changes 

could add additional costs, as increased 

EDR memory may be required in some 

cases. However, the agency explained it 

believed needed memory changes could 

be incorporated into the existing or 

planned memory design in vehicles, 

based on how slight any increased 

memory requirements needed to 

accommodate the added EDR data 

storage would be. The agency further 

explained its belief that in most cases 

the amount of additional memory 

necessary to comply with the proposed 

requirements would be less than the 

unused memory on a vehicle’s airbag 

control module (ACM) chip. Finally, the 

agency stated it anticipated the proposal 

would require no additional processor 

speed or backup power needs, despite 

the proposed increases in recording 

duration and frequency. 

The NPRM proposed an effective date 

of the first September 1 one year after 

the publication of the final rule. The 

agency explained that a one-year lead 

time was appropriate because increasing 

the required pre-crash data recording 

time should not require any additional 

hardware or substantial redesign of 

either the EDR or the vehicle and would 

likely require only minimal software 

changes. 

NHTSA sought comments on several 

aspects of the NPRM, including: 

1. The need and practicability of 

increasing the pre-crash recording 

duration. 

2. The need and practicability of 

increasing the sampling rate. 

3. Whether current EDRs will need to 

increase their memory capacity or 

change the memory implementation 

strategy (i.e., short term memory buffer 

verse long-term storage) to meet the new 

requirements. 

4. Whether the NPRM’s cost estimates 

and assumptions are accurate, including 

comments on whether there are other 

costs (e.g., redesign for a larger unit, 

additional capacity for Random-Access 

Memory (RAM), etc.), or other factors 

the agency needs to consider. 

5. Any potential impact of the 

NPRM’s proposal on the ACM processor 

and associated cost. 

6. Comments on the proposed lead 

time. 

7. Comments on the DOT’s Office of 

the Secretary’s Privacy Office (DOT 

Privacy Office) tentative determination 

that the proposed rulemaking does not 

create privacy risk, as no new or 

substantially changed technology would 

collect, maintain, or disseminate 

information in an identifiable form 

because of the proposed rule. 

The agency received responses from a 

wide variety of stakeholders and 

interested persons in response to the 

NPRM’s request for comments. These 

comments are available in the docket for 

the NPRM 22 and are discussed in detail 

in the response to comments section 

below. 

C. Requirements of the Final Rule 

After careful consideration of 

comments received and the 

requirements of the FAST Act, NHTSA 

is promulgating this final rule to amend 

regulations regarding EDRs. Under this 

final rule, the recording duration and 

data sample rate of 7 data elements in 

Tables I and II under part 563 will 

increase to 20 seconds at 10 Hz from the 

previous requirements of 5 seconds at 2 

Hz, as proposed by the NPRM and 

shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—NEW EDR REQUIREMENTS UNDER FINAL RULE

Data element 

Previous requirements Requirements under final rule 

Recording 

interval/time 1

(relative to time 

zero) 

(sec) 

Data sample rate 

(samples per 

second) 

Recording 

interval/time 

(relative to 

time zero) 

(sec) 

Data sample rate 

(samples per 

second) 

Recording interval/time (relative to time zero) 

Speed, vehicle indicated .......................................................... ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102814 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

23Limited line manufacturer means a 

manufacturer that sells three or fewer carlines, as 

that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United 

States during a production year. 

TABLE 2—NEW EDR REQUIREMENTS UNDER FINAL RULE—Continued 

Data element 

Previous requirements Requirements under final rule 

Recording 

interval/time 1

(relative to time 

zero) 

(sec) 

Data sample rate 

(samples per 

second) 

Recording 

interval/time 

(relative to 

time zero) 

(sec) 

Data sample rate 

(samples per 

second) 

Engine Throttle, % full (or accelerator pedal, % full) .............. ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 

Service brake, on/off ................................................................ ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 

Data Elements Required for Vehicles Under Specified Minimum Conditions 2 (Table II) 

Engine rpm .............................................................................. ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 

ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged) ..................................... ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 

Stability control (on, off, or engaged) ...................................... ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 

Steering input ........................................................................... ¥5.0 to 0 2 ¥20.0 to 0 10 

1Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is ¥0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T = ¥1 

would need to occur between ¥1.1 and 0 seconds.) 2 If the data for these data elements is recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent downloading, they must meet the recording duration and frequency requirements in part 563. 

The approach of this final rule is 

generally consistent with that of the 

NPRM. Minor non-substantive changes 

have been made to the final rule’s 

regulatory text in the interest of 

simplification and organizational 

purposes, including by maintaining the 

current language of § 563.3. 

Additionally, based on comments 

received we have adjusted estimated 

costs and modified the lead time to 

provide manufacturers the time 

necessary to make any software, testing, 

and development changes required to 

ensure the EDR captures and records 

pre-crash data without affecting air bag 

deployment, while still fulfilling the 

agency’s statuary mandate in a 

reasonable amount of time. 

D. Lead Time 

The NPRM sought to provide 

adequate lead time to manufacturers to 

allow them to incorporate necessary 

changes as part of their routine 

production cycles while also limiting 

the transition costs associated with the 

standardization of EDR data. To that 

end, the NPRM proposed an effective 

date of the first September 1 one year 

after the publication of the final rule. 

The NPRM estimated that 99.5 percent 

of model year 2021 passenger cars and 

other vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg 

or less had part 563-compliant EDRs. As 

discussed in the cost section of the 

NPRM, the agency believed that 

increasing the required pre-crash data 

recording duration and data sample rate 

would not require additional hardware 

or substantial redesign of the EDR or 

vehicle and would likely require only 

minimal software changes and testing 

for validation. 

Comments 

NHTSA received several comments 

criticizing the agency’s proposed oneyear lead time, with commenters stating 

it did not consider the complexity of 

EDR implementation, along with the 

time needed for testing and validation to 

ensure the primary and secondary 

functionalities of the EDR. Commenters 

expressed that a lead time of one year 

could compromise safety and suggested 

alternative lead times ranging around 3 

to 4 years. Several commenters also 

suggested a phase-in schedule extending 

out several years following publication 

of the final rule to allow manufacturers 

more time to significantly redesign the 

current software and hardware on their 

EDRs. The Motor & Equipment 

Manufacturers Association (MEMA) 

stated that software for a new vehicle is 

typically completed 18 months prior to 

the start of production, and that 

suppliers also require 18 months to 

deliver a validated update to 

manufacturers, along with an additional 

18 months to test and certify the new 

system. Commenters also sought 

exemptions for vehicle platforms 

nearing the end of their lifecycle within 

1–2 years of the Final Rule. 

The Alliance for Automotive 

Innovation (Auto Innovators) expressed 

concern that the short lead time, 

additional memory requirements, and 

other system resources necessary to 

meet the proposed increase in pre-crash 

recording duration and frequency could 

result in some manufacturers being 

forced to deactivate the EDR function 

entirely, or to shift EDR resources by 

choosing not to record Table II or ADAS 

system status data elements. 

Though supportive of the proposal, 

the Insurance Institute for Highway 

Safety and Highway Loss Data Institute 

(IIHS–HLDI) commented that if 

manufacturers were not able to meet the 

new requirements given the one-year 

lead time, they may instead choose to 

disable EDR functionality. IIHS–HLDI 

indicated support of a longer lead time 

to avoid the loss of any EDR data before 

the new requirements can be met. 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) indicated the proposed 

lead time was reasonable and that the 

proposed changes from 5 seconds of 

pre-crash data at 2 Hz to 20 seconds of 

pre-crash data at 10 Hz should be 

practical to implement. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA acknowledges comments 

from vehicle manufacturers and others 

stating that the NPRM’s proposed lead 

time would not allow manufacturers to 

incorporate the proposed changes as 

part of their regular production cycle. 

NHTSA agrees with comments received 

stating that a longer lead time is needed 

to allow manufacturers the flexibility to 

better manage the implementation of the 

final rule and alleviate unnecessary 

redesign costs for EDRs. Following 

review of comments received and 

further analysis, this final rule doubles 

the proposed lead time to accommodate 

manufacturer concerns, while also 

fulfilling the agency’s statuary mandate 

under the FAST Act in a reasonable 

amount of time. As a result, the revised 

requirements will be implemented 

beginning with vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2027. Limited 

line 23 and small-volume 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102815 

24Small-volume manufacturer as defined in 49 

CFR 571.127, ‘‘Automatic emergency braking 

systems for light vehicles,’’ is an original vehicle 

manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United 

States. 

25 DOT HS 809 438 (SAE stated the report 

concluded that EDR data are proven as a valuable 

Continued 

manufacturers 24 will only need to 

produce compliant EDRs on or after 

September 1, 2029. Manufacturers 

producing altered vehicles or vehicles 

in two or more stages will have one 

additional year, until September 1, 

2030, for compliance. 

Extending the lead time beyond 2 

years is not necessary. NHTSA 

understands that some vehicle models 

already have sufficient hardware to 

meet the requirements of this final rule, 

with one manufacturer indicating that a 

majority of its vehicle models are 

already equipped with sufficient 

hardware. NHTSA acknowledges that 

those EDRs would still potentially 

require up to 2 years of software 

development and testing to ensure their 

quality meets this final rule’s part 563 

requirements and that air bag 

deployment, if the EDR function shares 

resources with the restraint systems, is 

not affected by the extended duration 

and sampling rate of the EDR pre-crash 

data. Based on NHTSA’s internal 

analysis of EDR records in the Crash 

Investigation Sampling System (CISS), 

other manufacturers also have some 

EDR modules that could meet the 

requirements of this final rule without 

hardware changes. 

The agency did consider a phase-in 

period in response to timing concerns 

raised by manufacturers, but ultimately 

did not find that compelling reasons 

were presented to justify a phase-in 

period. However, in acknowledgment 

that some EDRs will require changes to 

meet the requirements of this final rule, 

the agency is doubling the initially 

proposed lead time to provide 

manufacturers with sufficient time to 

make the minor modifications adopted 

in this final rule. In support of this 

decision, NHTSA is aware that 

manufacturers across the globe can meet 

much shorter EDR lead times in other 

markets, such as Europe and Japan. 

NHTSA is not aware of any peculiarities 

of the U.S. market that would 

necessitate lead times double, triple, or 

quadruple the lead times in other 

markets. 

NHTSA also acknowledges the 

concern raised by some commenters 

that manufacturers may choose to 

deactivate EDRs because of their 

inability to meet the requirements 

within the proposed 1-year lead time. 

NHTSA does not share that concern, 

and in any event, this final rule’s 

extended lead time, which provides 

additional flexibility to manufacturers, 

should mitigate this concern. However, 

this final rule does not change the 

voluntary nature of part 563, and 

manufacturers remain free to decide if 

their vehicle will have EDR 

functionality based on their own 

considerations. Although the system 

that activates air bags in a vehicle may 

share resources with the EDR 

functionality, we emphasize that the 

performance of systems that deploy air 

bags (e.g., supplemental restraint 

system) to mitigate injuries in a crash 

should not be negatively affected in 

order to develop an EDR that meets 

today’s new requirements. 

IV. Final Rule and Response to 

Comments 

NHTSA received 21 comments on the 

proposed rule from a wide variety of 

commenters, including: advocacy 

groups, supplier and trade associations, 

vehicle manufacturers, manufacturer 

associations, insurance institutes, 

industry association consultants, 

engineer organizations, and members of 

the public. 

The safety advocacy groups included 

the Advocates for Highway & Auto 

Safety (Advocates) and the Center for 

Auto Safety (CAS). The supplier and 

trade associations included Robert 

Bosch LLC and Bosch Automotive 

Service Solutions (Bosch) and MEMA. 

Manufacturers and manufacturer 

associations included Nissan Motor Co., 

LTD. (Nissan), Ford Motor Company 

(Ford), American Honda Motor Co. 

(Honda), General Motors Company 

(GM), and Auto Innovators. Insurance 

institutes and industry associations 

commenting on the NPRM included the 

National Association of Mutual 

Insurance Companies (NAMIC), State 

Farm Insurance Companies (State 

Farm), and joint comments from the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(IIHS) and Highway Loss Data Institute 

(HLDI). The consultants and engineering 

organizations included the Event Data 

Recorder Committee of SAE 

International (SAE), the Collision Safety 

Institute (CSI), and QuantivRisk, Inc. 

NHTSA also received comment from the 

NTSB, and four comments from 

members of the public. 

Overall, safety advocates (CAS and 

Advocates), insurance institutes and 

industry associations (NAMIC, IIHS– 

HLDI, and State Farm), NTSB, and three 

public commentors generally supported 

the proposed amendment. However, 

they recommended NHTSA consider 

expanding part 563 requirements 

through such additions as new data 

elements for emerging safety systems 

like advanced driver-assistance systems 

(ADAS) and automated driving systems 

(ADS), increased vehicle weight limits 

applicable to all newly manufactured 

passenger vehicles, and a revised trigger 

threshold to include crashes involving 

vulnerable road users. These 

commenters also expressed support for 

the agency’s work with international 

organizations to harmonize EDR 

requirements, including groups like the 

United Nations Economic Commission 

for Europe (UN ECE), the World Forum 

for Harmonization of Vehicle 

Regulations (WP.29), and EDR technical 

working groups (e.g., SAE 

International). 

Other commenters questioned and 

criticized some aspects of the NPRM, 

including the proposed lead time and 

estimated costs. Commenters in this 

group included vehicle manufacturers 

and manufacturer associations, industry 

suppliers and trade associations 

(including MEMA), industry experts 

and engineering organizations (SAE, 

CSI, and QRI), and one individual 

member of the public. Several 

commenters indicated the NPRM’s 

proposed lead time was insufficient and 

suggested longer lead times. 

The following sections address the 

key issues raised by commenters in 

response to the NPRM, including 

concerns related to the recording 

duration and frequency (or sample rate), 

the EDR duration study, EDR 

components, additional data elements, 

privacy, benefits, costs, and other 

expressed concerns. 

A. Recording Duration and Sampling 

Rate 

The agency sought comment on the 

NPRM’s proposal to increase the EDR 

pre-crash recording duration and 

sample rates under part 563. Comments 

received expressed mixed views, with 

many comments critical of the proposal 

and expressing strong concerns with the 

EDR Duration study, suggesting that the 

NPRM’s extended duration proposal 

should not have relied upon the study’s 

findings. 

General Comments 

Several commenters did not support 

the NPRM’s proposal to extend part 

563’s recording duration requirements, 

expressing skepticism that recording 

data beyond current part 563 

requirements would improve crash 

causation investigations. SAE, 

referencing the agency’s technical report 

on ‘‘Characteristics of Fatal Rollover 

Crashes,’’ 25 acknowledged that rollover 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102816 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

source to determine vehicle speed, evasive 

maneuvers, and passenger status). 

26NHTSA, Special Crash Investigation No. 

IN10013, available at https://

crashviewer.nhtsa.dot.gov/nass-sci/ 

GetBinary.aspx?Report&

ReportID=804261920&CaseID=

804261915&Version=-1. 

27SAE provided comments and presented to 

NHTSA in response to the EDR Duration Study. See 

NHTSA–2022–0021–0005 and NHTSA–2022–0021– 

0006. 

crashes generally require a longer 

amount of recorded data but stated they 

do not justify the added duration of precrash data. SAE explained that 

increasing recording duration will, in 

almost all cases, merely represent static 

operating conditions. Ford stated that 

additional studies on vehicles with 

active safety features and EDRs 

compliant with part 563 are necessary to 

more accurately determine any 

anticipated safety benefit of extending 

the pre-crash recording duration at a 

higher sampling rate. 

GM, commenting that it already 

voluntarily added 3 seconds of precrash data to its latest Generation EDR, 

stated eight seconds of pre-crash data is 

more than sufficient to understand crash 

dynamics and vehicle performance 

based on its experience working with 

accident reconstructionists, police, and 

other authorities. 

CSI stated there is no need to increase 

EDR recording duration, but suggested 

the sample rate could be phased in over 

a longer lead time to allow for other 

revisions to part 563. Bosch indicated 

the current data sample rate of 2 Hz may 

not capture all data when a multiimpact crash occurs but emphasized 

that an increased sample rate would 

require significant changes in EDR 

hardware and software. Bosch agreed 

that increased pre-crash data frequency 

could capture additional events, such as 

braking interventions, lane change 

maneuvers, and steering maneuvers. 

Ford, seeking to clarify information 

cited by the agency in the proposal, also 

stated that although the EDR in the 

referenced 2007 Ford 26 was capable of 

recording more than 20 seconds of precrash data, it did not meet the crash test 

performance and survivability 

requirements of part 563. Ford 

explained that the pre-crash data in the 

2007 Ford was stored in the Powertrain 

Control Module (PCM), which served as 

a diagnostics tool not equipped with a 

power energy reserve. Ford stated it 

later replaced the PCM recording 

capability with a part 563-compliant 

EDR that uses the Restraint Control 

Module (RCM) to record PCM data for 

5 seconds prior to a crash event. 

Several commenters supported some 

or all aspects of the proposal, stating it 

would provide more information for 

crash investigations and safety data. 

IIHS–HLDI stated it would provide 

researchers with a greater understanding 

of the role different factors like vehicle, 

driver, and roadway/environment play 

leading up to a crash. NAMIC agreed 

more pre-crash data would help 

insurers, researchers, manufacturers, 

and regulators understand and 

determine crash causation, while also 

helping crash avoidance research. 

NAMIC also stated that the benefits of 

more pre-crash data on vehicle 

dynamics and system status, driver 

inputs, vehicle crash signatures, 

restraint usage/deployment status, and 

post-crash data, such as the activation of 

an automatic collision notification 

system, would provide greater safety 

value than any associated costs with 

increased memory capacity and 

potential EDR unit redesigns. State Farm 

supported the proposed duration and 

frequency changes to EDRs, and 

suggested vehicles should at minimum 

record all available information relevant 

to the crash. 

Many commenters supported 

extending recorded categories rather 

than extending the duration and/or 

sampling rate of existing part 563 data 

retention requirements to improve crash 

analysis. The NTSB stated although the 

proposed rule addresses data elements 

currently in part 563, a complete 

understanding of crashes involving 

vehicles with ADAS would necessitate 

more pre-crash data than is currently 

required. CAS stated that even longer 

durations and higher sample 

frequencies could be beneficial for data 

not currently included in part 563, such 

as progressive sensor degradation, object 

event detection, response processing, 

and performance of sensor and data 

processing components. 

EDR Duration Study 

Many commenters criticized the 

NPRM’s reliance on the EDR Duration 

Study’s finding that 20 seconds of precrash data encompasses the 90th 

percentile recording duration necessary 

to capture the initiation of driver 

actions. SAE stated the study failed to 

demonstrate that the recommended 20- 

second recording duration would 

improve crash causation investigations. 

SAE further stated that the study 

focused on determining the duration 

necessary to assess driver behavior, 

rather than crash causation, and 

reiterated its previous comments 

critiquing the study.27

Specifically, SAE stated the study 

should have assessed more than the 

speed, braking, and steering actions of 

the vehicle, noting that engine throttle 

percentage, accelerator pedal 

percentage, engine RPM, cruise control 

status, anti-lock braking system (ABS) 

activity, lateral acceleration, and yaw 

rate are all useful data elements when 

studying the cause of a crash event. SAE 

also stated the vehicles in the study 

lacked modern safety features, such as 

pre-collision braking and electronic 

stability control, which could have 

prevented some of the accidents or 

provided intervention within the 

current recording duration of 5 seconds. 

SAE asserted the study contained 

flawed assumptions about current 

automotive braking system 

architectures. SAE also stated there 

were two false assumptions concerning 

steering input. First, SAE explained the 

EDR Duration Study concluded that the 

availability of steering angle data, an 

optional data element, was very limited, 

thus reducing its significance in Phase 

I of the study. Second, SAE stated the 

study assigned steering angle data the 

same importance as the other data 

elements, and that the study’s authors 

erroneously assumed a weighted 

distribution would compensate for the 

small number of cases with steering 

input. In response to this assumption, 

SAE stated actual field-related data from 

more recent part 563 compliant vehicles 

covering a wider range of manufacturers 

should have been used, and that the 

study’s analysis should have been 

updated with current systems data. SAE 

also discussed the resolution of the 

steering input data, explaining that 

some pre-part 563 EDRs reported 

steering input data with a range of +/¥ 

16 degrees, meaning a steering 

maneuver beyond 16 degrees would 

need to be made to be detected and 

recorded in the EDR. SAE stated that 

depending on vehicle speed, a steering 

input of less than 16 degrees could have 

significance in relation to vehicle 

dynamics; however, if no such recorded 

input occurred, the study concluded the 

driver was not moving the steering 

wheel. 

SAE also critiqued the study’s lack of 

distinction between accelerator pedal 

position and engine throttle position, 

stating it purposely ignored EDR data 

recorded more than 5 seconds before a 

crash, and further stated that if all 8 

seconds of pre-crash data, where 

available, were reviewed, the study 

could have confirmed whether the 

service brake was on at 5 seconds prior 

to a crash event. SAE explained this 

information could demonstrate whether 

pre-crash data beyond 5 seconds would 

change overall reconstruction results. 

Finally, in relation to the study’s 1-Hz 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102817 

28 Gabler, H.C., Tsoi, A., Hinch, J., Ruth, R., 

Bowman, D., & Winterhalter, M. (2020, June). Lightvehicle event data recorder technologies (Report 

No. DOT HS 812 929). National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

29Singh, Santokh. Critical reasons for crashes 

investigated in the national motor vehicle crash 

causation survey. No. DOT HS 812 115. 2015. 

30 Dingus, Thomas A., et al. ‘‘Driver crash risk 

factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic 

driving data.’’ Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences 113.10 (2016): 2636–2641. 

31 Khattak, Asad J., et al. ‘‘A taxonomy of driving 

errors and violations: Evidence from the naturalistic 

driving study.’’ Accident Analysis & Prevention 151 

(2021): 105873. 

recording frequency in older vehicles, 

SAE and Auto Innovators stated brake 

pedal application can occur multiple 

times within one second, and state 

changes could be missed in the sample 

period. Several commenters expressed 

support for SAE’s comments on the 

study. 

Agency Response 

This final rule adopts the NPRM’s 

proposed part 563 EDR pre-crash data 

recording and frequency durations. This 

final rule’s implementation will fulfill 

the FAST Act mandate and provide 

additional information on the status of 

vehicle systems and the actions taken 

prior to a crash. 

General Comments 

The agency acknowledges criticisms 

raised by several commenters, including 

suggestions that further studies are 

needed to determine the safety benefits 

of additional EDR pre-crash data. 

However, NHTSA is confident the EDR 

Duration Study provides a solid basis 

for this final rule’s increase to 20 

seconds of pre-crash data based on the 

study’s findings on the amount of precrash actions missed in the 5 seconds 

prior to a recorded event by the EDR, 

particularly for in-road departure and 

intersection crashes. The EDR Duration 

Study found part-563’s 5-second 

recording duration insufficient to record 

important information in a substantial 

percentage of crashes in which the EDR 

is triggered. This information, including 

the initiation of crash avoidance driving 

maneuvers, e.g., pre-crash braking, 

would assist investigators with crash 

reconstruction. The study also found 

that 20 seconds of pre-crash data would 

encompass the 90th percentile recording 

duration required for the three crash 

modes and the crash avoidance 

maneuvers analyzed. 

In support of the increased frequency 

requirement of this final rule, NHTSA 

understands some manufacturers 

already equip vehicles with EDRs that 

record data at 5 or 10 Hz, and in some 

cases multiple rates. NHTSA agrees 

with commenters who expressed 

support for the proposed increase by 

stating the increased frequency could 

capture events like braking 

interventions, lane change maneuvers, 

and steering maneuvers that may be 

missed at 2 Hz. 

In response to Ford’s comment 

regarding the 2007 Ford vehicle 

included in the EDR Technology 

Study 28 and referenced in the NPRM, 

the agency is aware that the EDR in 

question was manufactured prior to the 

implementation of part 563. The agency 

did not reference it in the NPRM as a 

basis to state that all current EDRs are 

capable of recording 20 seconds of data. 

Instead, it serves as an example to show 

that manufacturers have already 

developed systems that record more 

than 5 seconds of pre-crash data. 

Finally, in response to comments 

encouraging the recording of additional 

data elements, this topic falls outside 

the scope of the NPRM and will not be 

addressed in this rulemaking. The 

agency may address the recording of 

additional data elements, including 

ADAS system status and performance 

parameters, in future rulemaking. 

Additional details on the estimated 

benefits of this final rule are discussed 

in section V. 

EDR Duration Study 

Many comments received criticized 

certain aspects of the EDR Duration 

Study and the NPRM’s reliance on it in 

extending the recording duration of part 

563. The agency does not find these 

arguments compelling. The study 

adequately met the FAST Act’s mandate 

to conduct a study to determine the 

amount of time event data recorders 

installed in passenger motor vehicles 

should capture and record for retrieval 

vehicle-related data in conjunction with 

an event to provide sufficient 

information to investigate the cause of 

motor vehicle crashes. 

Specifically, as required by the FAST 

Act, the study presented the durations 

necessary to provide sufficient 

information to investigate the cause of 

motor vehicle crashes. The agency does 

not agree with comments stating that the 

study incorrectly focused on driver 

actions rather than crash causation. The 

FAST Act required the agency to 

address data needed to assess crash 

causation. As such, vehicle dynamics 

were not the focus of the EDR Duration 

Study. Crash causation is crucial for 

effective crash investigation. Because 

many studies, some using policeaccident reports 29 or EDR data, have 

shown that driver error is often the 

cause of crashes,30 an understanding of 

pre-crash vehicle actions is critical to 

determining an appropriate recording 

duration. One study used the crashes in 

the Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) to 

determine that driver error contributed 

to 93% of observed crashes.31 In the 

EDR Duration Study, ‘‘behavior’’ is used 

synonymously with ‘‘action.’’ Therefore, 

the study’s objective in Phase II was to 

determine a recording duration that 

provides more certainty of capturing the 

complete duration of pre-crash actions. 

In response to SAE’s critique that 

speed, braking, and steering were 

studied exclusive to each other in Phase 

1 of the EDR Duration Study and not 

with the rest of the EDR data, NHTSA 

acknowledges SAE’s comment that 

crash reconstructionists analyze vehicle 

speed in conjunction with brake status. 

However, these two factors were not 

combined in Phase 1 because the study 

successfully addressed the research 

questions without studying whether 

enough brake pedal pressure was being 

applied to decelerate the vehicle. The 

study analyzed each pre-crash action 

individually because the study’s 

objective focused on whether any 

braking input, steering input, or 

accelerator release occurred. 

NHTSA also acknowledges SAE’s 

statement that the study assumed the 

Service Brake On indicator signified 

driver intent to actively brake the 

vehicle, when it could instead be related 

to disengaging cruise control status or a 

slightly engaged brake pedal (e.g., 

resting a foot on the pedal). In response 

to this comment, NHTSA states the EDR 

Duration Study solely focused on the 

pre-crash action itself, regardless of 

whether that action resulted in 

decreased vehicle speed. As such, any 

braking action can still be considered a 

valid pre-crash action of the driver. 

In response to SAE’s comment that 

weighted distributions were incorrectly 

used to compensate for the small 

number of cases with steering input in 

Phase I, NHTSA disagrees. Weighted 

distributions were used as the standard 

result format for all the data elements in 

the study, regardless of the sample size. 

Additionally, NASS–CDS data are 

designed for use in a weighted fashion 

because of its nationally representative 

structure. 

In criticizing the study, SAE and Auto 

Innovators commented that the EDR 

Duration Study assumed that no 

recorded steering input meant the driver 

was not moving the steering wheel, but 

that pre-part 563 EDRs required a 

steering input change of more than 16 

degrees to be captured by the EDR so 

active steering maneuvers in the dataset 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102818 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

32The two NDS studies used in the EDR Duration 

study collected data in normal driving conditions 

over the course of millions of trips and miles. 

may not have been captured. The EDR 

Duration Study could only use the EDR 

data available (which included pre-part 

563 EDRs) to evaluate what pre-crash 

actions were captured. The study 

assumed that if a non-zero steering 

angle was recorded at ¥5 s, the 

initiation of a pre-crash steering 

maneuver was not captured. NHTSA 

does not believe that the current 

resolution for steering input (5 degrees) 

would change the results of Phase 1 of 

the EDR Duration Study since the 

authors defined the steering input time 

as the time between the event and the 

earliest non-zero steering angle 

recorded. NHTSA agrees that, based on 

vehicle speed, a change in steering 

input less than the 16-degree resolution 

could be significant. 

In response to comments on the issue 

of whether the accelerator pedal 

position or engine throttle position was 

used to assess driver action, the EDR 

Duration Study used the accelerator 

pedal position to indicate a depressed 

pedal, as the objective of the study was 

driver action prior to crash. NHTSA 

acknowledges that accelerator pedal 

position and engine throttle position do 

not always correspond (especially given 

modern vehicles with drive-by-wire 

technology). The study used accelerator 

pedal position as it is related to the 

driver’s input, whereas the engine 

throttle position can lag behind that 

input. NHTSA also acknowledges SAE’s 

comment that the EDR Duration Study 

ignored data extending beyond 5 

seconds. Specifically, where EDRs 

recorded 8 seconds of pre-crash data in 

the study, the results were truncated to 

5 seconds to combine them with the 

remainder of the dataset that only had 

5 seconds of pre-crash data to make the 

brake pedal, accelerator pedal, and 

steering input data consistent. Doing so 

is consistent with the 5 seconds of precrash data required by part 563 prior to 

this final rule. This was done in Phase 

1, as this part of the study evaluated 

whether 5 seconds of data was sufficient 

for capturing the initiation of pre-crash 

maneuvers in rear-end, road departure 

and intersection crashes. The authors of 

the EDR Duration Study could not use 

EDR data to determine the duration 

beyond 5 seconds needed to capture 

crash causation, because most EDR data 

only records 5 seconds of pre-crash data 

per the minimum requirements in part 

563. Therefore, as required by the FAST 

Act, to determine the amount of time 

event data recorders installed in 

passenger motor vehicles should 

capture and record for retrieval vehiclerelated data in conjunction with an 

event to provide sufficient information 

to investigate the cause of motor vehicle 

crashes, Phase 2 of the study used two 

naturalistic driving studies (NDS) (100- 

Car NDS and SHRP–2 NDS). These 

studies were used because they include 

more than 5 seconds of data prior to an 

event.32

Further, although some commenters 

stated that older vehicles used in the 

study had EDR data recorded at a 

sample rate less than the part 563 

requirements (2 Hz), the EDR Duration 

Study acknowledged the uncertainties 

of the sample rate (1 Hz vs. 2 Hz) of data 

numerous times throughout the report. 

The study’s results were presented in 

terms of the observed EDR data, the 

‘‘Lower Bound,’’ and ‘‘Upper Bound,’’ 

which assumed the actual pre-crash 

action for EDRs recording at 1 Hz was 

one time step earlier than the reported 

time (e.g., if an initial braking action 

occurred at ¥4 s the action was 

assumed to occur at ¥5 s). NHTSA 

believes that presenting the results in 

this corridor fashion was appropriate 

and provided a fair and transparent 

representation of the range of times the 

driver action may have occurred. In 

response to SAE and Auto Innovators’ 

comments that a pre-crash braking 

action can occur multiple times within 

the time span of 1 second (1 Hz) or 0.5 

seconds (2 Hz), NHTSA notes that this 

fact supports increasing the recording 

frequency of pre-crash data, as required 

by this final rule, so that multiple precrash actions are captured by the EDR. 

NHTSA also acknowledges comments 

received stating that the vehicles used 

in the study lacked modern safety 

features that could have prevented some 

crashes and provided intervention 

within 5 seconds of the crash event. 

However, NHTSA observes the available 

EDR data used in the study did not 

generally include any details on active 

safety features, as part 563 does not 

require the capturing of those elements, 

which are at times voluntarily recorded 

by manufacturers. Therefore, any precrash data related to modern safety 

features could not be included as part of 

the research in Phase 1 of the study. 

NHTSA does not know if active safety 

features will be universally adopted in 

future vehicles or recorded for the 

purposes of crash reconstruction. 

However, NHTSA points out that ABS 

and electronic stability control (ESC) 

were studied in Phase 2 of the EDR 

Duration Study, which used naturalistic 

driving data from newer vehicles. The 

ABS activation times in that data ranged 

from 2–9 seconds prior to the crash, 

further demonstrating that a 5-second 

duration is not always sufficient to 

capture all the pre-crash actions of the 

vehicle. Finally, some comments 

criticizing the EDR Duration study 

addressed areas outside the scope of this 

rulemaking and the research questions 

and conclusions made by the study, 

such as how beneficial the additional 

data will be when used with vehicle 

dynamics for crash reconstruction and 

that pre-crash data would benefit more 

from additional data elements rather 

than extending the time capture precrash. As such, the agency is not 

addressing these comments in this final 

rule. 

B. EDR Components 

EDR Comments Overview 

The agency sought comment on 

whether the NPRM’s proposed changes 

would affect current EDRs, including in 

terms of creating any increased memory 

needs, processor speed burdens, or 

other issues not considered by the 

proposal. Many commenters, including 

OEMs, manufacturers’ associations, 

industry suppliers, trade associations, 

industry experts, and engineer 

organizations generally agreed that 

while the proposed 20 seconds of precrash data could be recorded by EDRs, 

some EDRs may require significant 

hardware and software changes to meet 

these demands. Commenters stated the 

memory (RAM and read-only Memory 

(ROM)), energy reserve, and 

microprocessor (or microcontroller) of 

EDRs may all need to be upgraded or 

expanded. Bosch stated that some 

manufacturers may have EDRs capable 

of accommodating the new 

requirements using current hardware. 

Nissan suggested that some of its EDR 

modules could record for 20 seconds 

without requiring hardware changes, 

given enough time for testing and 

development. 

Agency Response 

Following careful consideration of 

comments received, this final rule is 

extending the EDR recording period for 

timed data metrics from 5 seconds of 

pre-crash data at a frequency of 2 Hz to 

20 seconds of pre-crash data at a 

frequency of 10 Hz. NHTSA 

acknowledges some current EDRs may 

require significant hardware and 

software changes to meet this final 

rule’s recording requirements. However, 

the changes made by this final rule are 

necessary to fulfill the Fast Act’s 

requirement that the agency ‘‘shall 

promulgate regulations to establish the 

appropriate period during which event 

data recorders installed in passenger 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102819 

33Public Law 114–94, 2015 HR 22, Public Law 

114–94, December 4, 2015, 129 Stat 1312. 

34UN ECE Regulation No. 160 requires all new 

types of M1 and N1 vehicles in Europe to have an 

EDR beginning July 6, 2022, and further requires all 

new vehicles to have an EDR beginning July 7, 

2024. Table 1 in Annex 4 of UN R160 lists twentythree mandatory pre-crash data elements to be 

captured by the EDR. 

35For example, EDR records from vehicle 2 in 

CISS Case Number: 1–20–2022–129–03. 

36Manufacturers typically have more than one 

type of EDR installed across their vehicle models. 

37See Tables 20 and 21 in DOT HS 812 929. Table 

I data elements require 72 bytes and Table II data 

elements require 857 bytes. 

38For EDR data capture, part 563 requires the 

memory for air bag deployment events to be locked 

to prevent any future overwriting of the data. For 

non-air bag deployment events, the EDR can 

capture and record the current data, up to two 

events. 

39Comments received from GM and Honda 

support the contention that some EDRs are 

Continued 

motor vehicles may capture and record 

for retrieval vehicle-related data to the 

time necessary to provide accident 

investigators with vehicle-related 

information pertinent to crashes 

involving such motor vehicles.’’ 33

Based on the data submitted to 

NHTSA by vehicle manufacturers and 

EDR records available from CISS, many 

newer EDRs already have sufficient 

memory, processing performance, and 

reserve energy capacity to capture and 

record 20 seconds of pre-crash data at 

10 Hz. If necessary, manufacturers could 

potentially reconfigure these EDRs by 

reallocating memory to meet the new 

recording requirements for pre-crash 

data in this final rule, as the reallocation 

of memory would not entail any 

additional energy or processor 

capability. NHTSA acknowledges the 

subject systems would still need to 

undergo development and testing to 

ensure they function as intended with 

no adverse effect on the activation of air 

bags in a crash event with air bag 

deployment. 

The agency is aware that memory is 

not solely used to record EDR data, as 

it is shared by other functions of the 

ACM. However, many modern EDRs, 

particularly those updated to meet UN 

ECE Regulation No. 160,34 likely already 

have sufficient capability to meet the 

pre-crash recording duration and 

sample rate requirements of this final 

rule without disrupting how EDR data 

are currently recorded. Based on the 

CISS EDR data available, NHTSA is 

aware of at least one manufacturer that 

has made such EDR upgrades to a large 

portion of its newer models, such that 

only software changes would be needed 

to comply with the final rule.35 Further, 

EDRs that currently capture and record 

more than 1600 bytes of pre-crash data 

could allocate resources to, at 

minimum, record the three required 

Table I data elements for 20 seconds at 

10 Hz. 

Additional analysis on comments 

received and the agency’s response in 

the areas of EDR memory, data 

processing, energy reserve, design, and 

the development process is provided 

below. 

Memory 

Comments 

Many commenters indicated the 

current amount of non-volatile memory 

in EDRs may not be sufficient to record 

20 seconds of pre-crash data captured at 

10 Hz. The NPRM indicated an increase 

in pre-crash recording duration from 5 

seconds to 20 seconds with an 

accompanying increase in recording 

frequency from 2 Hz to 10 Hz, would 

require 1.33 kilobytes (kB) of additional 

memory (a factor of 2.43 increase from 

the baseline) if all 7 pre-crash data 

elements were recorded. However, SAE 

stated some suppliers estimated the 

memory would increase by a factor of 

8.5. SAE explained that adding more 

memory to meet the new data capture 

requirements would involve a complex 

process, as reallocating memory from 

other data elements would require an 

entire development process for each 

type of EDR.36

GM stated that to meet the proposed 

requirements in the NPRM, the memory 

for its latest generation EDR would have 

to increase from approximately 720 

bytes per recorded event to 8260 bytes, 

or an increase by a factor of 

approximately 11.5 based on 46 precrash data elements. GM explained this 

estimate must be multiplied by 3 to 

account for 3 separate EDR-recorded 

event buffers. GM further stated it is 

desirable to have a consistent sampling 

rate for all pre-crash data elements to 

reduce software complexity, and that it 

does not have a design in production 

that can simply incorporate the 

requirements in spare memory. 

GM explained memory allocation is 

one of the first steps of new product 

development, used to determine the 

specifications for the microprocessor, 

memory storage size and type, energy 

reserve, and power supply, and that 

changes to the type of memory required 

would have a significant impact on the 

design specifications for EDRs. Honda, 

Nissan, and Ford also stated that 

meeting the requirements proposed in 

the NPRM would require additional 

non-volatile memory. CSI and MEMA 

stated memory estimates should 

consider that the ACM and any other 

system housing the EDR shares 

processor power and memory with the 

EDR, and that additional memory is 

rarely available in existing systems. 

QuantivRisk, Inc. and CSI also stated 

that adding memory would require 

additional development and testing 

costs. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA acknowledges comments 

received from industry, OEMs, and 

trade associations suggesting that EDRs 

would require more memory than that 

estimated by the NPRM (for both data 

capture and recording) to meet the 

NPRM’s proposed requirements. 

Necessary memory upgrades could 

include both non-volatile memory for 

storing the recorded crash data, and 

volatile memory (or RAM) for data 

processing (read into and write over). 

Currently, part 563’s specified recording 

duration of 5 seconds at 2 samples per 

second generates a total of 11 samples 

for each pre-crash data element (2 

samples per second × 5 seconds + 1 

initial sample). 

The EDR Technology Study, reporting 

on information provided by EDR subject 

experts from OEMs and ACM/EDR 

suppliers, found a typical recorded 

crash event requires approximately 929 

bytes (77 bytes for pre-crash data 

elements) to record all of the Table I and 

Table II data elements for a single 

event.37 Depending on the redundancy 

strategy for data quality control, a 

typical recorded EDR requires 

approximately 1.86 kB per event. To 

record data for 20 seconds at 10 Hz, 201 

samples (10 × 20 + 1) would be 

captured, or an additional 190 samples 

per pre-crash data element over the 

previous requirements of 5 seconds at 2 

Hz. In total, an additional 1,330 (190 × 

7) data points must be captured, 

processed, and recorded per crash event 

if all 7 pre-crash data elements are 

recorded (Table II lists optional data 

elements if they are recorded by the 

EDR). An EDR is required to record 

these elements for up to two events in 

a multi-event crash.38 To capture two 

events, the EDR would require an 

additional 2,660 bytes of memory for the 

additional data, as required by this final 

rule. Similarly, an equal amount of 

RAM would be needed for data 

processing. 

Memory reallocation may be 

necessary for older generation EDRs to 

meet this final rule’s required Table I 

elements. Additionally, manufacturers 

with EDRs that voluntarily record data 

elements not listed in Tables I and II 39


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102820 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

recording data beyond the Table I and II part 563 

elements. 

40NHTSA understands that manufacturers have 

moved from EEPROM to flash memory located on 

the microprocessor for memory storage. The agency 

did not receive specific comments on how much 

flash memory EDRs are using to record pre-crash for 

5 seconds or on the amount of memory that would 

be needed to capture the additional data, including 

additional memory for redundancy. Therefore, it is 

difficult to discuss examples of how the different 

components would need to be upgraded. 

of part 563 may need to reallocate 

memory if memory allocation is nearing 

capacity or there is insufficient memory 

to meet the requirements of this final 

rule. However, NHTSA accepts this 

potential as Congress unambiguously 

signaled its desire for the agency to 

prioritize the time necessary to provide 

accident investigators vehicle-related 

information pertinent to crashes through 

the FAST Act statutory mandate. This 

final rule’s additional lead time should 

considerably minimize any required 

memory reallocation. Further, any 

memory reallocation needed to meet the 

requirements of this final rule could 

potentially be carried out by only 

capturing those elements required by 

Table I, as only Table I elements must 

be recorded if an EDR is installed. 

In relation to recording requirements, 

GM suggested that it is preferable to 

record all pre-crash data elements 

captured by its latest generation EDR, 

including those required by part 563 

and those voluntarily captured, at the 

same sample rate to not increase 

software complexity. However, EDRs 

that record data elements at different 

recording intervals and data sample 

rates already exist (e.g., some EDRs 

capture and record data at both 5 s/10 

Hz and 5 s/2 Hz). Further, although 

manufacturers may choose to do so, 

NHTSA is not requiring manufacturers 

to record all pre-crash data at 20 

seconds and 10 Hz; rather they must 

only apply that standard to those 

elements listed in Table I and, if 

recorded, Table II of part 563. 

If an EDR does record numerous data 

elements not listed in part 563 at 20 

seconds and 10 Hz, NHTSA agrees that 

the amount of extra memory needed to 

record that data could significantly 

increase. However, the recording of 

additional elements outside of Table I is 

not required by this final rule, and the 

minimum amount of extra memory 

needed to record the three pre-crash 

Table I elements is only approximately 

570 bytes (1,040 bytes if considering 

two events). The estimate provided by 

the agency for the additional memory 

needed (2,660 bytes) is for all 7 

mandatory and optional pre-crash data 

elements captured at 20 s and 10 Hz, 

and for the recording of multiple events. 

The decision to install additional 

memory necessary for data buffering 

and redundancy is a voluntary decision 

by a manufacturer and is not required 

by part 563. As discussed in the NPRM, 

many manufacturers already have EDRs 

with sufficient hardware capabilities to 

capture and record more pre-crash data, 

or will have the time to develop such 

EDRs given this final rule’s additional 

lead time allowing for EDR development 

and testing/validation. For example, 

vehicle models equipped with EDRs 

containing 32 kB of flash data storage 

(memory) or greater should already have 

sufficient capacity to capture the 

increased amount of pre-crash data 

required by this final rule. 

For EDRs containing insufficient 

memory to record the data elements in 

Table I and II at this final rule’s required 

recording interval/data sample rate, 

manufacturers may be able meet the 

new requirements through various 

means. For example, if EDR memory is 

currently used to record other data 

elements not required in part 563, OEMs 

could reallocate the available memory to 

record the mandatory data elements at 

20 seconds and 10 Hz. If no excess 

memory is available because a portion 

of the memory is used for purposes 

outside of capturing and recording EDR 

data, modification should not be overly 

burdensome, as only 1.33 kB of 

additional memory is needed under this 

final rule to record the seven pre-crash 

data elements. Further, if an OEM solely 

recorded the data elements required by 

Table I, only approximately 0.57 kB of 

additional memory would be needed to 

meet the requirements of this final rule 

(an increase from 33 samples to 603 

samples for Table I pre-crash data 

elements). 

Where memory reallocation is not 

possible or preferred and additional 

memory is necessary, manufacturers 

could increase the memory capacity of 

the EEPROM, or embed higher capacity 

flash memory chips with similar costs, 

since flash memory typically costs less 

than EEPROM.40 For example, 

information from manufacturers in the 

EDR Technology Study indicated a 

typical 2013 microprocessor used in 

vehicle applications had 32 kB or 64 kB 

of flash data as part of the ACM, and 

that most companies are replacing the 

older memory technology (EEPROM) 

with flash memory located on the 

microprocessor. As previously stated, 

EDRs containing 32 kB of flash data 

storage (memory) or greater should have 

sufficient capacity to capture the 

increased amount of pre-crash data 

required by this final rule. 

Finally, in response to comments 

expressing concern that the NPRM 

failed to capture all costs associated 

with any EDR memory increases needed 

to meet the requirements of this final 

rule, NHTSA acknowledges these 

concerns and, following careful 

consideration, has adjusted estimated 

costs accordingly in the Final 

Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) 

accompanying this final rule. 

Additional details on the updated cost 

estimates of this final rule are discussed 

in section V. 

Data Processing 

Comments 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the proposal would create 

increased data processing needs. SAE 

and Auto Innovators stated that, 

depending on current microprocessor 

capacity, the proposed data 

requirements would necessitate 

additional energy capacity, speed, and 

memory upgrades, which would also 

require a new microprocessor and 

circuit board. SAE and Auto Innovators 

indicated these modifications would 

require a complete redesign of the EDR 

from both a hardware and software 

perspective. GM stated none of its 

current EDR designs can support the 20 

second requirement without changes to 

the microprocessor. Honda commented 

that the NPRM’s proposed increases in 

recording duration and frequency will 

increase the amount of RAM in the 

microcontroller unit (MCU) required to 

record the data, necessitating a 

physically larger and higher 

performance MCU. Honda explained 

that the proposed changes would also 

require the MCU ROM and processor 

performance (e.g., clock frequency) to 

increase. 

Agency Response 

NHTSA acknowledges the concerns 

raised by several commenters, including 

Honda, GM, SAE, and Auto Innovators, 

that the proposed requirements may 

necessitate microprocessors with higher 

clock speeds and an increased amount 

of ROM depending on the performance 

specifications of the current 

microprocessor used to capture and 

record EDR data. NHTSA also 

acknowledges comments stating that the 

NPRM’s proposed increase in RAM 

would necessitate a physically larger 

and higher performance microprocessor. 

However, these changes may only be 

necessary in older generation EDRs or 

EDRs that are recording data at or near 

the memory capacity. Further, although 

some older generation EDRs may lack 

the performance specifications needed 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102821 

41Based on quotes from DigiKey, the average unit 

price for 3.3 mF capacitors is $0.11 and the average 

unit price for 10.0 mF capacitors is $0.13. Therefore, 

$0.02 was used as the upgrade cost for reserve 

energy. 

to capture and record the increased 

duration and frequency of pre-crash 

data required by this final rule 

(including clock speed of the 

microprocessor, available ROM, RAM, 

and flash memory), many newer EDRs 

have the necessary MCU specifications 

to record for 20 seconds. NHTSA 

acknowledges these newer versions 

would require a period of software 

development to change how data are 

buffered, written to memory, and tested 

to validate the EDR and ensure that all 

systems interacting with the EDR 

perform as intended. However, these 

concerns should be alleviated through 

the additional lead time provided by 

this final rule, which should allow 

manufacturers to make any EDR design 

changes needed to meet the 

requirements of this final rule. 

Energy Reserve and Design Concerns 

Comments 

Several comments stated that the 

proposal would require increased 

energy reserve. Auto Innovators 

explained the EDR function is typically 

integrated into a vehicle’s ACU or ACM 

and includes reserve energy to 

successfully deploy the restraint 

systems, facilitate high voltage shutoffs 

for electric vehicles, and record EDR 

data into non-volatile memory if vehicle 

power is lost early in the crash event. 

GM stated the increased write time 

duration would require more energy 

reserve, and that a microprocessor with 

a higher current draw could affect the 

energy reserve. For many existing units 

to meet the new requirements, Auto 

Innovators stated that the amount of 

additional, voluntary data elements 

recorded by the EDR would need to be 

reduced, or that the air bag control/EDR 

module would require redesign to 

accommodate the additional reserve 

power capacity. Both Auto Innovators 

and SAE stated that many current EDRs 

record more than the minimum part 563 

requirements, and that these additional 

data elements would also have to be 

recorded for 20 seconds. 

Several commenters stated the 

proposed changes would require larger 

and, in some cases, multiple capacitors 

to meet the extended pre-crash 

recording period, as the EDR module 

operates under its own power supply 

during a crash. Commenters indicated 

larger capacitors pose engineering 

challenges in terms of lifespan, 

durability, and ability to charge during 

normal operation. Auto Innovators 

stated the additional energy capacity 

required to meet the new requirements 

would considerably increase the 

footprint of the ACU/EDR, and that 

enough physical space may not exist in 

optimum locations for current vehicles 

(selected for crash sensing and 

durability) to accommodate increases in 

ACU/EDR size. Commenters explained 

needed changes to the size of the 

module could require redesign and 

affect placement in the vehicle, 

increasing design complexity and 

increasing costs for both consumers and 

manufacturers. 

Agency Response 

The ACU requires reserve energy 

(provided by capacitors) in the event of 

a loss of battery power in the vehicle. 

This reserve energy exists for the EDR 

to capture and record data, while also 

ensuring the vehicle’s air bags can 

properly deploy. NHTSA acknowledges 

several comments received from 

industry stating that meeting the 

proposed EDR requirements may 

necessitate capacitors with increased 

capacitance, which may in turn require 

overall hardware changes and potential 

design changes to the EDR. However, 

none of the comments received stated 

that additional power was necessary 

across all EDR modules, instead only 

suggesting that more power may be 

required. 

Based on comments received, NHTSA 

understands that some manufacturers 

equip EDRs that voluntarily record precrash data elements not listed as part of 

the minimum requirements in part 563. 

Any data elements not listed in part 563 

that a manufacturer may choose to 

capture are not required to be recorded 

for 20 seconds at 10 Hz. A large amount 

of voluntarily recorded pre-crash data 

all recorded at 20 seconds could 

increase the amount of reserve energy 

required to write to memory and 

provide backup power, which could 

necessitate redesign of the EDR 

packaging. However, as previously 

stated, NHTSA is only requiring EDRs to 

record the three pre-crash data elements 

in Table I and the four pre-crash data 

elements in Table II (if they are recorded 

by the EDR) for 20 seconds. Although 

manufacturers may prefer to record all 

data at the same duration and sample 

rate, there are examples of EDRs in CISS 

that record data at different durations 

and sample rates. Manufacturers are of 

course free to record voluntarily 

captured elements as they prefer. 

Based on NHTSA’s analysis, the costs 

of capacitors, especially in large 

quantities, is relatively low. For 

example, an EDR capacitator upgrade 

from 3.3 mF to 10.0 mF would cost 

approximately $0.02 per unit, based on 

market research.41 Further, EDRs with 

sufficient memory capacity to allow for 

some memory reallocation would not 

require an increase in reserve energy. 

The physical size of capacitors can vary 

according to many different constraints 

such as: manufacturer, dielectric type, 

target application, mounting style, 

capacitance, voltage rating. Based on 

NHTSA’s research, there are 6.8 mF 

capacitors and a 10.0 mF capacitors with 

similar specifications beside 

capacitance that have the same physical 

dimensions in terms of diameter and 

surface mount area. Varying other 

parameters (e.g., voltage rating) only 

changes the physical dimensions of 

these capacitors by 1 mm or less. 

Ultimately, the manufacturer chooses 

where to place the EDR housing within 

its vehicles. NHTSA has included cost 

estimates that cover software 

development and design validation but 

does not believe such small hardware 

components will significantly affect the 

size of the physical casing that holds the 

electronic components of the EDR. 

Therefore, this final rule adopts the 

NPRM’s proposal to extend the EDR 

recording period for timed data metrics 

from 5 seconds of pre-crash data to 20 

seconds of pre-crash data at a frequency 

of 10 Hz. Manufacturers should be able 

to meet these requirements given the 

lead time and relatively low cost of 

capacitors to implement any required 

upgrades. 

Development and Validation 

Comments 

SAE and Auto Innovators stated that 

in addition to costs incurred from the 

proposed EDR component upgrades, the 

proposal would also require associated 

development and integration costs, 

including validation and testing at 

component, sub-system, and vehicle 

levels. These commenters stated that 

costs and associated lead times are 

further amplified because the EDR 

application is most often coupled with 

a safety restraint management system 

requiring rigorous safety system 

validation and verification. Nissan, 

explaining it confirms the functionality 

of the EDR in coordination with other 

compliance crash tests completed in 

less than 20 seconds, commented that 

the proposal would require additional 

or new crash test procedures to retrieve 

data from a vehicle. SAE commented 

that capturing 20 seconds of data would 

require a crash test facility over 985 feet 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102822 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

42Examples of some pre-crash data elements not 

listed in part 563 but recorded by some 2021 EDRequipped light vehicles include: adaptive cruise 

control status, AEB status, brake pedal position, 

cruise control status, drive mode, forward collision 

warning, ignition status, lane departure warning, 

road departure mitigation status, tire pressure 

status, traction control system status, and wheel 

speed. 

43 71 FR 50998 (Aug. 28, 2006). 

44Public Law 114–94, § 24301–24302, 129 Stat. 

1312, 1713–14 (2015). 

45UNECE WP.29 has established the EDR/DSSAD 

Informal Working Group (IWG) to develop 

internationally harmonized performance 

specifications/regulations for EDR functions. 

long, and that no such test facility 

currently exists. GM also expressed 

concerns in relation to vehicle level 

validation, asking if the proposal would 

require a crash of sufficient length to 

encompass the entire 20 seconds of precrash data. GM explained that such a 

requirement would impact vehicle 

barrier facilities and testing protocol, 

resulting in additional costs. 

Agency Response 

Several commenters expressed 

concerns that the proposed rule would 

incur new costs, including for a new 

crash test facility and additional or new 

crash test procedures to record and 

retrieve the appropriate amount of data. 

In response, the agency points out that 

vehicles do not have to operate at the 

speeds specified for crash testing under 

such scenarios as FMVSS No. 208 or 

FMVSS No. 214 to meet the new EDR 

recording requirements of this final rule. 

New or altered test procedures may be 

needed to validate the EDR, but 

manufacturers should not need new 

crash test facilities to meet the new data 

capture requirements. Manufacturers 

may instead use other means that do not 

require the vehicle to travel at crash test 

speeds (i.e., 56 kph or 35 mph) for 20 

seconds to capture pre-crash data as 

testing validation for this final rule’s 

data capture requirements. For example, 

tests may be conducted by initially 

operating the vehicle at a minimum 

speed before acceleration or by idling 

the vehicle prior to accelerating to the 

speeds necessary for other crash tests. 

The availability of these alternative 

options and the extended lead time 

provided by this final rule will help 

mitigate any potential incurred costs. 

C. Additional Data Elements 

Comments 

Many commenters stated that part 563 

should include the recording of 

additional ADAS/ADS data elements to 

improve EDR data effectiveness. 

Commenters stated the incorporation of 

new crash avoidance, pre-crash, and 

post-crash data elements would provide 

a greater safety value to improve driverassistive safety technologies compared 

with increased recording duration and 

frequency. Several commenters 

recommended that a standard format for 

capturing and reporting data related to 

advanced safety systems should be 

defined and included as part of the EDR 

requirements. Some commenters 

encouraged NHTSA to follow a similar 

path to the European Union’s (EU) 

recent mandate requiring the equipping 

of new vehicles with EDRs that record 

ADAS elements. Bosch recommended 

the use of other recorders to record 

information like driver and ADS state to 

determine the control of the vehicle 

before an event triggering EDR 

recording, such as the Data Storage 

System for Automated Driving (DSSAD) 

recommended by the UN ECE, or the 

SAE ADS data logger (SAE J3197). 

Agency Response 

While NHTSA agrees with 

commenters that additional data 

elements may be beneficial for collision 

reconstruction, this topic falls outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. The NPRM 

did not address the addition of any new 

data elements, and the rulemaking 

responds to the FAST Act’s instruction 

to promulgate regulations establishing 

the appropriate amount of time that 

EDRs should capture and record data. 

The agency may address the recording 

of additional data elements, including 

ADAS system status and performance 

parameters, in future rulemaking. 

Manufacturers may of course continue 

to include or add pre-crash data 

elements outside of those listed in part 

563 42 to EDRs but must also comply 

with this final rule. Manufacturers may 

also continue to log data from modern 

safety features in other vehicle systems. 

D. Privacy Considerations 

Comments 

As explained in the NPRM, the DOT 

Privacy Office has determined that this 

rulemaking does not create privacy risk 

because no new or substantially 

changed technology will collect, 

maintain, or disseminate information in 

an identifiable form. NHTSA requested 

comment on this determination. 

In response to this request, SAE stated 

that when part 563 was initially 

proposed it specified a recording 

duration of 8 seconds, which the agency 

reduced to 5 seconds to apply prudent 

judgment in balancing securing data 

with the privacy rights of an individual 

vehicle operator.43 SAE cited the 

comment submitted by the Electronic 

Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in 

response to the initial proposal of 

establishing part 563, in which EPIC 

cited several Fair Information Practices 

(FIPs) limiting data collection based on 

purpose-specific principles and 

cautioned NHTSA against an 

incremental expansion of EDR data 

records as mandated policy. SAE stated 

NHTSA should demonstrate a clear 

public benefit for the proposed 

increased data capture duration, 

contrasted with a balance of personal 

privacy. Auto Innovators stated that 

expanding the pre-crash recording time 

to 20 seconds will capture a significant 

amount of driver behavior, much of 

which will not have any significant 

impact on the determination of crash 

causation factors that cannot currently 

be obtained by other crash 

reconstruction methods. 

Agency Response 

The agency emphasizes that EDRs do 

not record personally identifiable data, 

and captured data are regularly 

overwritten, except for specified crash 

events meeting the trigger threshold to 

retain data. Increasing the pre-crash 

recording duration from 5 seconds to 20 

seconds should not increase privacy 

concerns, as no new or substantially 

changed technology will collect, 

maintain, or disseminate information in 

an identifiable form. Further, the Driver 

Privacy Act of 2015, part of the FAST 

Act 44 and implemented after the 

establishment of part 563, states that the 

owner or lessee of a motor vehicle is the 

owner of the data collected by an EDR. 

Recorded EDR data may only be 

retrieved for the purpose of improving 

motor vehicle safety and vehicle safety 

research (provided the data are not 

personally identifiable), or through the 

vehicle owners’ consent or a court or 

administrative order. These privacy 

protections should alleviate expressed 

privacy concerns while allowing the 

agency to fulfill the FAST Act’s 

mandate to establish the appropriate 

recording period in NHTSA’s EDR 

regulation. 

E. International Harmonization 

Comments 

Several commenters expressed 

support for international harmonization 

of EDR functions. Specifically, SAE, 

Honda, Auto Innovators, MEMA, and 

Bosch stated they support a harmonized 

approach with UN ECE Regulation No. 

160.45 Commenters noted that UN 

Regulation No. 160–01, which went into 

effect in July 2024, has adopted 

additional data elements for modern 

safety technologies. SAE recommended 

maintaining a mandated EDR practice 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102823 

consistent with global EDR regulations 

to ease manufacturers’ financial burden 

and avoid penalizing US vehicle buyers. 

In support of this approach, SAE 

discussed other global requirements, 

including those of Korea (KMVSS 56–2), 

Japan (J–EDR 2015), China (GB 39732– 

2020), EU (2022/545 based on UN 

R160), and Russia (Fed article 26 162– 

03), which all require a minimum of 5 

seconds of pre-crash data captured at 2 

Hz. Honda stated it has developed its 

EDRs to accommodate not only part 563 

requirements, but also the various EDR 

regulations for China and UN R160 (00 

and 01 Series). 

Agency Response 

NHTSA acknowledges that some 

other international EDR regulations 

specify a 5 second pre-crash data 

recording duration at 2 Hz. However, 

the agency has decided to proceed with 

the extended EDR data recording and 

frequency requirements proposed in the 

NPRM based on the requirements of the 

FAST Act and the findings of the EDR 

Duration Study, which found that 

capturing data at an increased recording 

duration and sample rate will enhance 

certainty when interpreting pre-crash 

data, resulting in improved crash 

investigations. In response to comments 

encouraging international 

harmonization in such areas as 

additional data elements for modern 

safety technologies, this topic falls 

outside the scope of the NPRM and will 

not be addressed in this rulemaking. 

However, the agency may address such 

topics in future EDR rulemakings, 

following review of the results of 

ongoing international efforts related to 

EDRs. 

F. Other Considerations 

Comments 

NHTSA received several other 

comments generally related to part 563. 

One individual supported an increased 

EDR duration but stated there is a need 

to update part 563’s trigger threshold 

definition. This commenter stated that 

the current trigger threshold, which 

specifies an 8 km/h change in vehicle 

velocity within a 150 ms interval, may 

not capture non-air bag deployment 

events, such as collisions involving a 

vulnerable road user and a vehicle. 

IIHS–HLDI provided similar comments 

and suggested modifying part 563 to 

include automatic emergency braking 

(AEB) activation status as a trigger 

threshold, as many vehicles are 

equipped with AEB systems. The 

Institute also stated that adding data on 

vehicle-to-pedestrian collisions would 

improve roadway design and help refine 

vehicle structures and crash avoidance 

systems to mitigate the severity of those 

collisions. 

One individual commenter stated part 

563 should apply to all newly 

manufactured vehicles, regardless of 

weight. The commenter explained that 

some newer electric vehicles may weigh 

more than the applicability requirement 

of an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 

lb. and would therefore be exempt from 

complying with part 563. 

Agency Response 

Although multiple commenters 

encouraged additional amendments to 

part 563, these suggestions fall outside 

the scope of the proposed rulemaking 

and are thus not included in this final 

rule. However, NHTSA may consider 

additional amendments to part 563 as 

part of a future rulemaking. 

V. Summary of Estimated Benefits and 

Costs 

The requirements specified in this 

final rule affect vehicle manufacturers 

that produce light vehicles with a 

GVWR not greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 

pounds) and voluntarily install EDRs in 

their vehicles. This rule also applies to 

final-stage manufacturers and alterers. 

Both the agency and the public have 

historically benefited from 

incorporating EDR information into 

crash and defects investigations, as the 

inclusion of EDR data leads to improved 

investigations and better understanding 

of injury causes and mechanisms. 

The NPRM stated the proposed 

increased recording time for the precrash data would provide benefits by 

helping to ensure that data on the 

initiation of pre-crash actions and 

maneuvers are captured for most 

crashes. The agency explained this 

increased data would enhance the 

usefulness of the recorded information, 

potentially leading to further 

improvements in the safety of current 

and future vehicles. The agency also 

stated the proposed increase in data 

recording frequency would clarify the 

interpretation of recorded pre-crash 

information for crash investigators and 

researchers. 

In relation to costs, the NPRM 

acknowledged that increasing the 

recording time of the pre-crash data 

could add additional costs for increased 

memory if an EDR had little or no 

excess memory in the module. In the 

NPRM, the agency stated it understood 

that about 99.5 percent of model year 

2021 passenger cars and other vehicles 

with a GVWR of 3,855 kg or less are 

already equipped with part 563- 

compliant EDRs, that no additional 

hardware would be required by the 

proposed amendment, and that 

compliance costs would be negligible. 

The agency sought comment on 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with the NPRM’s proposals. 

Comments 

Most commenters stated the proposal 

to increase the amount of pre-crash data 

captured and recorded would result in 

significant costs, including because of 

the need to upgrade and validate EDRs 

in vehicles. Many OEMs stated that 

costs would hinder the implementation 

of the proposed final rule, with some 

citing concerns over whether a realworld safety gap exists to justify costs 

incurred. Commenters stated the 

proposed changes would increase 

memory requirements, resulting in an 

increased overall EDR price. 

Commenters also stated software and 

hardware changes would be needed to 

meet the 20-second pre-crash capture 

requirements, including, where 

necessary, increased capacitance to 

provide power to the EDR and to make 

necessary changes to the printed circuit 

board. 

Specifically, SAE pointed to a study 

done by the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) on 

heavy-duty and commercial data 

recorders, referenced in the NPRM, 

stating it raised questions concerning 

the applicability of the cost estimates for 

flash memory. SAE also listed the 

following component changes and costs 

that must be considered for multiple 

module designs: microprocessor 

upgrade, additional memory (both RAM 

and nonvolatile memory), energy 

reserve increase, PCB design changes, 

module housing changes, potential 

mounting changes in vehicle software 

and hardware engineering design and 

development cost, component 

validation cost, vehicle validation cost 

for new module designs, and vehicle 

level recertification. 

GM expressed concerns over the 

burdens associated with increased EDR 

complexity and the inability of different 

regions to arrive at a more common 

technical solution, pointing to recently 

implemented worldwide EDR 

regulations that maintain the 5-second 

pre-crash recording interval and sample 

rates historically required by part 563. 

GM further stated the cost estimate in 

the NPRM is not negligible and does not 

fully encompass all the required 

changes proposed by the NPRM, which 

could include component validation, 

full vehicle validation, and vehicle 

recertification of the EDR and the 

Sensing and Diagnostic Module. 

Auto Innovators submitted additional 

comments related to costs following the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102824 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

46NHTSA–2022–0021–0025. 

47Even though crash investigators gather 

insightful information about the dynamics of 

crashes, some parameters cannot be determined or 

cannot be as accurately measured (such as the 

change in velocity) by traditional post-crash 

investigation procedures, such as visually 

examining and evaluating physical evidence, e.g., 

the crash-involved vehicles and skid marks. 

48NHTSA Report No. NHTSA–NVS–2011–ETC, 

‘‘Technical Assessment of Toyota Electronic 

Throttle Control (ETC) Systems,’’ February 2011. 

49 In March 2010 NHTSA began obtaining data 

from Toyota EDRs as part of its inquiry into 

allegations of unintended acceleration (UA), and as 

follow-up to the recalls of some Toyota models. The 

study analyzed cases in which the accelerator pedal 

became stuck or entrapped, seeking to determine 

the root cause of each crash. 

50Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

FMVSS No. 150, Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Communication Technologies for Light Vehicles, 

December 2016, HS 812 359. 

51 Derived from the NHTSA report ‘‘Target Crash 

Population for Crash Avoidance Technologies in 

Passenger Vehicles,’’ March 2019, DOT HS 812 653. 

closing of the NPRM comment period.46

These comments stated that, based on 

member responses, the estimated 

average cost of development and testing 

to meet the proposed rule would be $8.4 

million dollars per manufacturer, with 

an average estimated cost increase of 

$5.40 per vehicle to develop an EDR 

meeting the proposed rule. Given those 

estimates, Auto Innovators stated that, 

assuming an average annual light duty 

vehicle production of 16.4 million 

vehicles for 17 OEMs, the cost burden 

for the first year would be $231.36 

million. Auto Innovators explained this 

is the sum of each OEM’s development/ 

test costs and that, assuming the same 

annual production took place, the 

annual cost burden following the first 

year of implementation of the final rule 

would be $88.56 million, based on the 

annual affected vehicle production 

times the incremental EDR module cost. 

Commenters also stated 

manufacturers may require vehicle 

crash tests to ensure the data transferred 

from sensors in the vehicle to the EDR 

are not affected by hardware updates. 

Commenters stated costs to consumers 

and lead-time implications are 

especially important because of such 

issues as supply chain disruptions, 

microchip shortages, high inflation, and 

economic uncertainty. Auto Innovators 

also stated NHTSA should consider 

equity issues given the average new car 

price of vehicles. 

In support of the proposal, NAMIC 

commented that the costs to increase the 

recording duration are warranted by the 

benefits of more and better pre-crash 

data, even if costs in addition to 

memory are required (e.g., redesign for 

a larger unit, additional RAM, etc.). 

NAMIC stated the proposed changes 

provide greater safety value than any 

additional costs to the vehicle. CAS 

stated the price of flash memory used to 

estimate costs in the NPRM was 

overestimated and that OEMs may 

receive discounts for bulk memory 

purchases. CAS further stated the 

incremental cost associated with 

upgrading the memory would not 

prevent the expansion of EDR data 

storage. 

Agency Response 

The agency does not agree with 

comments expressing skepticism over 

the benefits of the NPRM’s proposed 

increased recording duration and 

frequency requirements. This final 

rule’s requirements will improve crash 

investigations and crash data collection 

quality, ultimately assisting the agency 

and others in identifying potential 

opportunities for safety improvement in 

vehicles already on the road, improving 

future vehicle designs, and creating 

more effective safety regulations. The 

increased information captured by the 

requirements of this final rule will aid 

not only the agency, but also crash 

investigators, first responders, and 

others. 

However, following review the agency 

does find certain comments received 

stating that the NPRM did not consider 

additional costs associated with the 

NPRM’s proposal compelling. As such, 

NHTSA has revised the cost estimates 

originally provided in the NPRM to 

include two different EDR versions: 

those solely requiring software changes 

to meet the proposed rule and those 

requiring both hardware and software 

changes. The updated estimated benefits 

and costs associated with this final rule 

are detailed below. 

A. Benefits 

EDR data are invaluable for improving 

system performance. EDR data improve 

crash investigations and crash data 

collection quality, which assists safety 

researchers, vehicle manufacturers, and 

the agency to better understand vehicle 

crashes and help determine crash 

causation.47 Similarly, vehicle 

manufacturers can use EDR data to 

improve vehicle designs and develop 

more effective vehicle safety 

countermeasures. For example, as 

mentioned in the NPRM, the Toyota 

unintended acceleration study 48

confirmed the significant value of EDR 

pre-crash data.49 The agency 

successfully used this EDR data to assist 

in determining the root cause of the 

events and to support the safety recalls. 

Further, in 2016, the agency used EDR 

data to establish crash scenarios and 

vehicle dynamics when evaluating the 

efficacy of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) 

communication technologies in an 

NPRM for V2V.50

The requirements of this final rule 

will fulfill the outstanding need of 

adequate recording of pre-crash actions 

for investigation and reconstruction 

without overtasking the vehicle’s power 

and memory needs for capturing EDR 

data. The amendments may also result 

in foundational upgrades to the 

hardware and software for a modernized 

EDR, which could in turn support the 

capture and recording of other data 

elements. This final rule’s increased 

recording duration and refined 

resolution may also provide OEMs with 

more granular pre-crash information 

that manufacturers can use to evaluate 

and develop improvements for vehicle 

systems. NHTSA acknowledges that, 

similar to the establishment of part 563, 

it is difficult to estimate the exact 

portion of benefits creditable to an 

increased amount of EDR data after a 

standard is implemented or a safety 

countermeasure is developed. While 

stored data are valuable in terms of 

safety research and emergency response, 

it is not easy to quantify how they 

translate to the improvement of vehicle 

safety. However, increased recording 

duration and frequency will provide 

many overall benefits to the public, as 

described below. 

Increased Recording Duration 

Per the findings of the EDR Duration 

Study, the current part 563 EDR precrash recording duration of 5 seconds 

does not capture the initiation of precrash braking and steering maneuvers in 

a substantial percentage of cases. Based 

on the findings of the study a recording 

duration of 20 seconds is required to 

ensure that the initiation of pre-crash 

actions and maneuvers can be captured 

for most crashes. The three crash modes 

examined in the EDR Duration Study— 

rear-end, intersection, and roadway 

departure—comprised about 70 percent 

of all passenger vehicle crashes, 

annually.51 Separately, these crashes 

represent the most prevalent, relatively 

longer maneuvered times required, and 

relatively severe crashes (based on 

fatalities). Therefore, the newly required 

20 second recording time is adequate to 

record the pre-crash actions for almost 

all crashes given the collective 

frequency of these three crash types and 

what they represent. 

Increasing the recording duration of 

pre-crash data will help ensure that data 

on the initiation of crash avoidance 

driving maneuvers are captured for most 

crashes. This increased recording 

duration will enhance the usefulness of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102825 

52 DOT HS 812 929, pg. 39. Five vehicle 

manufacturers and three suppliers were 

interviewed as part of the study. 

53While true time synchronization of data 

originating from the vehicle network may not be 

possible, the increased sample rate for pre-crash 

data elements may reduce the potential uncertainty 

related to the relative timing of data elements, 

specifically for correlating the driver’s commands 

and the vehicle’s performance. 

54Smith, C.P., Sherony, R., Gabler, H.C., and 

Riexinger, L.E., ‘‘Identifying Pedal Misapplication 

Behavior Using Event Data Recorders,’’ SAE Int. J. 

Advances & Curr. Prac. in Mobility 5(1):206–216, 

2023, doi:10.4271/2022–01–0817. 55Matsumura, H., and Itoh, T., ‘‘Study on 

Estimation of Traveling Trajectory Using the 

Recording Data in the Event Data Recorder,’’ SAE 

Int. J. Adv. & Curr. Prac. in Mobility 5(2):580–594, 

2023, https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0837. 

the recorded information, potentially 

leading to further improvements in the 

safety of current and future vehicles. 

The study also found that a better 

understanding of pre-crash actions will 

assist in the evaluation of emerging 

crash avoidance systems (e.g., lane 

departure warning, lane keeping assist, 

forward collision avoidance, automatic 

emergency braking, and intersection 

safety assistance systems). 

The 20 second extended recording 

duration will be particularly useful in 

intersection crashes, which have an 

approach stage as the vehicle comes to 

the intersection and a traversal stage in 

which the vehicle is exposed in the 

intersection. Based on the EDR Duration 

Study, the currently required 5-second 

recording duration captures less than 1 

percent of the total intersection event 

time, which includes the approach and 

traversal stage. The study found that 15 

seconds would capture 50 percent of the 

total intersection event time, and 20 

seconds would capture 95 percent of the 

total intersection event time. With this 

final rule’s increased recording 

duration, actions such as running a stop 

sign, rolling stops, or running a red light 

could be captured in full and included 

in the crash reconstruction when 

supplemented with roadway and traffic 

control information. In road departure 

crashes, longer durations could also 

capture any corrective maneuvers by the 

vehicle before the initial road departure. 

Increased Recording Frequency 

Currently most EDRs capture precrash data at a frequency of 2 Hz. 

However, based on EDR records in the 

NASS–CDS and CISS (Crash 

Investigation Sampling System) 

databases, some manufacturers already 

use models that voluntarily capture precrash data at 5 Hz or 10 Hz. Further, 

some vehicle manufacturers and 

suppliers have indicated their support 

for an increased frequency rate. When 

manufacturers and suppliers were asked 

about near-term plans for EDRs in the 

EDR Technology Study, some 

respondents expressed interest in 

adding, ‘‘higher sampling frequency and 

longer recording interval for pre-crash 

data, i.e., sampling interval better than 1⁄10 of a second.’’ 52

In support of the benefits of this final 

rule’s amendments to part 563, an 

increase in data recording frequency 

will help clarify the interpretation of 

recorded pre-crash information. For 

example, rapid vehicle control inputs 

(e.g., brake application and release or 

rapid reversals in steering input of less 

than 0.5 seconds) may not be logged by 

an EDR that records data at 2 Hz. 

Although 20 seconds of pre-crash data 

will capture more crash causation 

information, a refinement in acquisition 

frequency is also needed to assuage data 

misinterpretation concerns. An 

improved data sampling rate is also 

needed due to the nature of crashes, 

which can include a quick sequence of 

events prior to a crash that require a 

vehicle’s crash avoidance technologies, 

such as Anti-lock Braking System and 

Electronic Stability Control, to activate 

quickly. To understand the performance 

and effectiveness of such systems, the 

sample rate of pre-crash data elements 

should be increased. In addition, as EDR 

output for pre-crash data elements is not 

synchronized,53 including at the 

previously required sample rate of 2 Hz, 

uncertainty could exist when an 

investigator is attempting to compare 

data at specific points in time with 

precision. The higher sample rate 

required by this final rule will reduce 

this potential uncertainty in relation to 

the relative timing of recorded data 

elements, to better correlate a driver’s 

commands and a vehicle’s performance. 

This final rule’s increased sample rate 

will also benefit crash causation 

analysis and pre-crash behavior. For 

example, additional events like 

momentary highly dynamic steering 

inputs, ABS, or ESC activation that are 

not recorded at the 2-Hz sample rate 

could be captured at 10 Hz. For multiimpact crash events, a sample rate of 10 

Hz will allow the EDR to better capture 

the actions that occur when a vehicle 

undergoes a series of events (e.g., lane 

departure resulting in striking an object 

followed by striking another object in 

immediate succession). 

Further, an increase in recording 

frequency could help investigators 

better identify where vehicle dynamics 

prior to a crash event relate to pedal 

misapplication. Pedal misapplication 

crashes occur when a driver presses one 

pedal while intending to press another 

pedal. In an emergency braking 

situation, pedal misapplication would 

result in the driver pressing the 

accelerator pedal hard. Identifying and 

decreasing pedal misapplication events 

is important, as a recent study observed 

pedal misapplication rates involved a 

much higher percentage of events than 

previously estimated.54 While data 

points can be estimated to account for 

data gaps when recorded at 2 Hz, driver 

actions may not be captured by the EDR 

at the time they occur. This 

informational gap may result in 

underestimations of the accelerator 

application rate, resulting in a failure to 

identify pedal misapplication entirely, 

if, for example, the driver fully presses 

the accelerator pedal to 100 percent for 

a quarter of a second. An increased 

recording frequency of 10 Hz will help 

identify events involving pedal 

misapplication, potentially providing 

additional information on how to 

mitigate these events and improve 

vehicular safety. 

Finally, in addition to the many 

benefits provided by this final rule’s 

requirement to increase part 563’s data 

recording frequency requirements to 10 

Hz, manufacturers’ voluntary 

integration of ADAS data elements 

recorded at a sample rate of 10 Hz could 

provide valuable insights on the 

performance of new technologies. For 

example, some vehicle manufacturers 

already voluntarily collect EDR data on 

the status and operation of ADAS 

technologies (e.g., activation of forward 

crash warning alerts, automatic 

emergency braking activations, and lane 

keeping assist technologies). In 

voluntarily collecting this information, 

manufacturers have generally adopted 

the sample rate used for pre-crash data 

elements voluntarily recorded by the 

EDR (2 Hz), but some current EDRs 

capture data at 10 Hz. Evidence has 

shown that an increased sample rate of 

10 Hz will help provide the resolution 

needed to understand the real-world 

performance and effectiveness of these 

advanced crash avoidance systems and 

better estimate the actions of the vehicle 

prior to a crash, such as the traveling 

trajectory.55 This information will in 

turn allow researchers to better 

determine the timing of the sequence of 

pre-crash actions. 

B. Costs 

The Preliminary Regulatory 

Evaluation (PRE) the NPRM relied on to 

estimate costs considered only vehicles 

equipped with EDRs containing 

sufficient memory, microprocessor 

specifications, and reserve energy to 

record 20 seconds of data at 10 Hz. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102826 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

56See https://www.mouser.com/c/ 

semiconductors/memory-ics/eeprom as of July 25, 

2023. 

57Note that RAM is generally more expensive 

than EEPROM, but NHTSA does not have a 

comparable price comparison because of a lack of 

data and online product information specifically for 

RAM designed for vehicle use. However, based on 

NHTSA’s internal analysis, RAM is approximately 

20.0 percent more expensive than EEPROM given 

the same memory capacity. As a result, updating 

RAM would cost $0.07 (= 0.06 * 1.20). 

58The cost of upgrading this class of EDRs now 

reflects the ‘‘upper bound’’ of the cost analysis 

provided below and represents the need to go from 

a ‘‘base EDR’’ to an ‘‘upgraded EDR.’’ 

59The agency recognizes that even with the 

approach taken in the PRE, manufacturers would 

still need to test and validate any redesigned EDR 

to ensure it would function as intended and not 

negatively affect the performance of the air bag 

systems in the vehicle. 

NHTSA acknowledges comments 

criticizing the NPRM’s cost estimates for 

not adequately accounting for any 

changes needed to meet the proposed 

amendments. 

For example, the NPRM estimated 

additional memory costs by multiplying 

the additional 1,330 bytes to record for 

20 seconds at 10 Hz by the cost of flash 

memory (0.072 cents/megabyte) 

reported in the EDR Technology Study. 

This calculation resulted in a cost 

estimate of $0.003 for additional 

memory per event. However, in 

response to comments received, the 

agency reviewed online estimates, 

which indicate that the unit cost for a 

16 kB, 32 kB, and 64 kB EEPROM is 

$0.41, $0.46, and $0.56, respectively.56

This pricing results in an additional cost 

of $0.15 to increase memory from 16 kB 

to 64 kB.57 As such, this final rule is 

updating the estimated unit cost for 

memory upgrade (if all seven pre-crash 

data elements are recorded) to be $0.13 

per vehicle. The $0.13 per vehicle 

includes $0.06 per vehicle to upgrade 

the storage memory and $0.07 per 

vehicle to upgrade the RAM, both based 

on two events being recorded. 

Although the PRE still applies to 

EDRs with sufficient memory, 

microprocessor specifications, and 

reserve energy to meet this final rule’s 

requirements, NHTSA acknowledges it 

did not comprehensively consider costs 

associated with older EDR technologies 

and the corresponding level of upgrades 

potentially required in vehicles 

equipped with them, including costs for 

redesign and validation. Per comments 

received, NHTSA understands not all 

vehicles are equipped with EDRs 

containing sufficient memory/processor 

capability/reserve energy to require only 

software changes.58 Based on feedback 

from commenters and in 

acknowledgement of this issue, NHTSA 

has revisited the cost estimates 

presented in the NPRM to determine the 

costs associated with meeting the 

requirements of this final rule given the 

wide variety of EDRs currently 

available. 

Unlike the PRE, this final rule 

includes estimated costs for EDRs 

currently compliant with part 563 that 

need upgrades to meet this final rule’s 

new recording duration and frequency 

requirements. These updated cost 

estimates are presented via a ‘‘lower 

bound’’ and ‘‘upper bound’’ to capture 

the potential range for the total cost of 

the final rule. These bounds are in place 

to avoid speculating on how many 

vehicles and EDR platforms would only 

require software changes to meet the 

new data capture requirements versus 

those that would require hardware and 

software changes. 

Description of Upper and Lower Bound 

Cost Estimates 

The cost estimates presented in the 

Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE) now 

represent a ‘‘lower bound’’ reflecting the 

incremental costs of ‘‘upgraded EDRs’’ 

that already have the capacity to comply 

with this final rule.59 The ‘‘upper 

bound’’ represents all the potential 

components of an EDR that may require 

upgrades to transition from a ‘‘base 

EDR’’ to an ‘‘upgraded EDR’’ to meet the 

requirements of this final rule. For this 

category of EDRs, the estimated costs 

encompass more than the incremental 

costs required to meet this final rule. As 

EDRs currently vary in hardware 

capabilities, the actual cost of the final 

rule should fall somewhere between the 

lower bound and upper bound of the 

cost estimates laid out below. 

Every part 563 pre-crash data element 

will require the capturing of an 

additional 190 data points to meet the 

20 second recording duration and 10 Hz 

frequency requirement of this final rule. 

Specifically, for the 3 required data 

elements in Table I, the total number of 

additional data points is 570. For all 7 

pre-crash data elements in Table I and 

II, the total number of additional data 

points is 1,330. The NPRM explained 

that manufacturers could accommodate 

this needed increase in memory by 

using the existing memory already 

available for capturing and recording 

EDR data (typically in the ACM). The 

NPRM estimated associated costs for 

these additional memory needs (1.33 kB 

for all 7 pre-crash elements) would be 

$0.003 per vehicle based on a 

conservative estimate of $0.002/kB. 

However, as previously acknowledged, 

these estimated costs did not account 

for EDRs requiring hardware upgrades 

based on insufficient reserve energy or 

microprocessors. 

While many newer generation EDRs 

record at rates between 5 Hz to 10 Hz, 

most EDRs still record 5 seconds of precrash data. Although the agency has a 

large pool of EDR data, ascertaining the 

exact hardware specifications among 

various EDRs for the purposes of this 

rulemaking is not practical, as EDR 

modules come with a variety of chip 

designs capable of accomplishing 

similar functionality with similar costs, 

and this information is proprietary. The 

varied and proprietary nature of EDR 

designs thus makes defining a 

representative ‘‘base EDR’’ challenging. 

Further, EDR designs vary not only by 

manufacturer, but also often by vehicle 

model, and EDR capabilities are not 

standardized. Indeed, they must only 

meet the minimum requirements in part 

563. For example, some EDRs record 

more than 5 seconds of pre-crash data, 

some record more than two events, and 

some voluntarily record more optional 

data elements than those specified in 

Table I or Table II of part 563. Further, 

some EDRs record the required and 

optional pre-crash data at different 

sample rates. 

Despite the lack of available data 

needed to perform a comprehensive 

assessment of EDR design specifications 

and corresponding functionalities, the 

agency used its best knowledge to 

adequately describe a representative 

base EDR representing the upper bound 

for the cost estimates based on the 

specifications in Table 3. We assumed 

that a base EDR does not have sufficient 

excess memory to record pre-crash data 

for 20 seconds at 10 Hz, requiring the 

microcontroller and reserve energy to be 

upgraded or increased to meet the 

requirements of this final rule. We also 

assumed that a base level EDR must be 

fully upgraded/modernized, meaning its 

associated costs are well in excess of the 

incremental costs associated with 

making an already updated EDR 

compliant with the final rule. This cost 

is more representative of a vehicle 

manufacturer updating its EDR 

capability with an eye towards 

recording additional data elements, 

such as data elements required by UN 

R160. If a manufacturer chooses to 

capture and record ADAS-related precrash data elements not listed in part 

563, then hardware components may 

need to be upgraded well beyond what 

is required by this final rule. However, 

as mandated by the FAST Act, NHTSA 

is only changing the duration and 

sample rate of part 563 pre-crash data 

elements. 

For the lower bound of cost estimates, 

we assumed a vehicle is already 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102827 

60All costs are in 2022 values. 61Costs for testing, evaluation, and other fixed 

costs are factored into the component unit costs by 

a 1.5 markup factor from its variable cost. 

equipped with an EDR capable of 

capturing pre-crash data for 20 seconds 

at 10 Hz, as well as additional 

unrequired data (i.e., it has already been 

upgraded by the vehicle manufacturer 

from the base level previously discussed 

to the fully modernized level). In this 

scenario, the ‘‘upgraded EDR’’ would 

not require hardware changes but may 

still require development time for 

software changes, testing, and 

validation. As a result, the estimated 

cost for this scenario would only 

include software redesign and EDR 

validation. An upgraded EDR 

representing the lower bound is 

described by the specifications in Table 

3. 

As shown in Table 3, the estimated 

cost to upgrade only the hardware of the 

base EDR to that of the upgraded EDR 

is $1.33 per EDR. This cost estimate 

includes an increase in the non-volatile 

memory capacity, a higher-performance 

MCU, and more reserve energy to 

capture and record the data and backup 

power to the system. 

TABLE 3—BASE EDR AND UPGRADED EDR HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONS USED FOR COST ESTIMATES

Component Base EDR Upgraded EDR 

Non-Volatile Memory ............................................ EEPROM or Flash ............................................... 16 kB ..................... 64 kB. 

Microcontroller (32-bit) ......................................... ROM ..................................................................... 512 kB ................... 1 MB. 

Memory ................................................................ 48 kB ..................... 96 kB. 

RAM ..................................................................... 48 kB ..................... 96 kB. 

Clock Frequency .................................................. 80 MHz .................. 120 MHz. 

Reserve Energy .................................................... Capacitance ......................................................... 3.3 μF .................... 10 μF. 

Estimated costs to upgrade hardware for increased data capture (per unit) 

$1.33 ...................... $0.00. 

Following publication of the NPRM 

and review of comments received 

NHTSA carried out a Final Regulatory 

Evaluation (FRE), available under the 

same docket number as this final rule, 

to estimate the total unit cost per EDR. 

The total unit cost consists of the 

following components: (1) increased 

memory capacity, (2) microcontroller 

upgrades, (3) energy reserve upgrade, (4) 

EDR redesign and validation, (5) 

assembling related material and labor 

costs, and (6) data imaging tool upgrade. 

The aggregated unit cost is the 

additional cost for an EDR to comply 

with the final rule. Based on these 

findings, the agency now estimates that 

the cost to upgrade EDRs to meet the 

new requirements under this final rule 

would range between $0.87 and $2.20 

per vehicle equipped with an EDR.60

NHTSA estimates that this final rule 

will affect approximately 15.23 million 

light vehicles annually with a GVWR 

less than 8,501 lbs. This number is 

derived from Ward’s Automotive 

Yearbook 2022 and the agency’s NCAP 

data. Based on Ward’s data, from 2012 

to 2021, the average annual sales of light 

vehicles with a GVWR less than 14,001 

lbs was approximately 16.21 million. 

Due to the incompatible GVWR 

categorization in Ward’s data, NHTSA 

was not able to directly parse out the 

number of light vehicles, i.e., GVWR 

less than 8,501 lbs, so NCAP data was 

used. NCAP data includes the precise 

GVWR and expected sales volume, but 

only for models of vehicles that 

manufacturers reported to the agency. In 

other words, NCAP might not be 

adequate for assessing the absolute 

annual vehicle sale volume since the 

expected sold volume might not be the 

actual volume sold and the reported 

models might not be comprehensive. 

However, NCAP is a reasonable, 

available source to derive the relative 

proportion of vehicles by GVWR. Based 

on 2021 and 2022 NCAP, an average of 

6 percent of reported light vehicles had 

a GVWR greater than 8,500 lbs. 

Multiplying the annual sales from 

Ward’s data by the percentage of 

affected vehicles results in 15.23 million 

(= 16.21 million * 0.94). Based on 

approximately 15.23 million affected 

vehicles sold annually, the total 

estimated annual costs range from 

$13.26 million to $33.52 million.61 The 

FRE’s estimated unit cost per EDR for 

each cost component, the total unit cost, 

and the total annual costs for the lower 

and upper bound estimates are shown 

in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—COST ESTIMATES FOR INCREASED RECORDING DURATION OF EDR PRE-CRASH DATA

Cost To Modernize EDR From Indicated Baseline 

Cost components Upgraded EDR 

(lower bound) 

Base EDR 

(upper bound) 

Memory Capacity Increase .......................................................................................................................... $0.00 $0.13 

EEPROM/Flash Increase ..................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.06 

Buffer (Volatile Memory) ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.07 

Microcontroller Upgrades ............................................................................................................................. 0.00 1.10 

Energy Reserve Upgrade ............................................................................................................................ 0.00 0.02 

EDR Redesign and Validation ..................................................................................................................... 0.87 0.87 

Labor for Assembling ................................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.08 

Data Imaging Tool Upgrade ........................................................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 

Aggregated Unit Cost .................................................................................................................................. 0.87 2.20 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102828 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

62NHTSA–2022–0021–0025. 

63Annual production of vehicles typically fitted 

with part 563 compliant EDRs averaged between 

2015–2019 (pre-COVID). See https://www.epa.gov/ 

automotive-trends/explore-automotive-trendsdata#SummaryData. 

64Online quotes are for a sale quantity that is 

significantly less than the quantity that would be 

purchased by the manufacturers. To account for the 

efficiency of mass production and pricing power, 

NHTSA uniformly discounted these unit prices by 

70 percent to represent the component price for 

manufacturers. This 70 percent discount may be 

conservative based on the agency’s knowledge. 

TABLE 4—COST ESTIMATES FOR INCREASED RECORDING DURATION OF EDR PRE-CRASH DATA—Continued 

Cost To Modernize EDR From Indicated Baseline 

Cost components Upgraded EDR 

(lower bound) 

Base EDR 

(upper bound) 

Total Number of Affected Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 15,230,000 

Total Cost of the Rule (in Millions) ............................................................................................... $13.26 $33.52 

Given the lack of reliable available 

data discussed above, NHTSA has used 

the cost estimates provided by Auto 

Innovators in response to the NPRM to 

estimate the cost for redesign and 

validation in the FRE.62 Auto Innovators 

provided an estimated average 

development/testing cost of $8.4 million 

per OEM, based on feedback from 

OEMs. This estimate would amount to 

a total of $142.8 million collectively for 

the 17 OEMs that provided estimates to 

Auto Innovators and would only be 

considered part of the cost burden for 

the first year. Applying this cost to 16.4 

million vehicles sold annually 63 over 

10 years, the estimated cost per vehicle 

for this component is $0.87. In the FRE 

for this final rule, the estimated $0.87 

for redesign and validation has been 

applied equally in both the lower bound 

and upper bound scenarios. Estimated 

costs for memory, microprocessors, and 

capacitors were derived from an online 

search, with sources presented in the 

FRE for this rulemaking. The 

components were filtered using the 

following specifications: automotive 

grade or use, reel package, and surfacemount. The sourced online sale unit 

prices were quoted for small quantities 

compared to the large quantities that 

OEMs may order for production. The 

unit prices were further discounted to 

30 percent of the unit price.64 The costs 

for wiring and assembly have been 

adjusted for inflation from the estimated 

assembly costs presented in the 2006 

EDR final rule. 

In acknowledgment of the updated 

estimated costs laid out in the FRE, 

NHTSA has added lead time to this final 

rule to allow OEMs additional time to 

comply with this final rule. This lead 

time should mitigate costs that may be 

required for OEMs to meet this final 

rule. The added lead time will also 

allow for the phasing out of older EDR 

systems prior to the implementation of 

the 20 second and 10 Hz requirements. 

Phasing out these EDRs will help negate 

required upgrades and any costs 

associated with the necessary 

components and costs needed to 

develop and test the package. 

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094, and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

We have considered the potential 

impact of this rule under Executive 

Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

Executive Order 14094, and DOT Order 

2100.6A. This final rule is 

nonsignificant under E.O. 12866 and 

E.O. 14094 and was not reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. It is 

also not considered ‘‘of special note to 

the Department’’ under DOT Order 

2100.6A, Rulemaking and Guidance 

Procedures. 

As discussed in this final rule and the 

NPRM, the additional pre-crash data 

that would be collected by EDRs under 

this final rule would be valuable for the 

advancement of vehicle safety by 

enhancing and facilitating crash 

investigations, the evaluation of safety 

countermeasures, advanced restraint 

and safety countermeasure research and 

development, and certain safety defect 

investigations. Improvements in vehicle 

safety could occur indirectly from the 

collection of these data. 

We estimate that approximately 99.5 

percent of model year 2021 passenger 

cars and other vehicles with a GVWR of 

3,855 kg or less are already equipped 

with part 563-compliant EDRs. As 

discussed in the section on the cost 

impacts of this final rule, the agency 

believes that a portion of currently 

equipped EDRs would not require 

additional hardware to meet the 

requirements of this final rule and that 

the compliance costs would be low for 

software testing and validation. 

Additionally, this final rule’s lead time 

should allow manufacturers to choose 

how best to equip compliant EDRs in 

applicable vehicles by the effective date 

of this final rule, while also mitigating 

costs. Updated cost estimates have been 

provided for EDRs that would require 

hardware and software updates. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies 

to evaluate the potential effects of their 

proposed and final rules on small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small Government jurisdictions. The 

Act requires agencies to prepare and 

make available an initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

describing the impact of proposed and 

final rules on small entities. An RFA is 

not required if the head of the agency 

certifies that the proposed or final rule 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. I 

hereby certify that this rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Additional details related to the basis of 

this finding can be found in the FRE for 

this rulemaking final rule. 

The factual basis for the certification 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)) is set forth below. 

Although the agency is not required to 

issue an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, this section discusses many of 

the issues that an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis would address. 

This final rule creates minor 

amendments to 49 CFR part 563, Event 

Data Recorders (EDRs), to extend the 

recording period for pre-crash elements 

in voluntarily installed EDRs from 5 

seconds of pre-crash data at a sample 

rate of 2 Hz to 20 seconds of pre-crash 

data at a sample rate of 10 Hz. This final 

rule applies to vehicle manufacturers 

that produce light vehicles with a 

GVWR not greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 

pounds) and voluntarily install EDRs in 

their vehicles. It also applies to finalstage manufacturers and alterers. We 

know of no Federal rules which 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

final rule. 

The Small Business Administration’s 

size standard regulation at 13 CFR part 

121, ‘‘Small business size regulations,’’ 

prescribes small business size standards 

by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102829 

65BMW, Fiat/Chrysler (Ferrari and Maserati), 

Ford, Geely (Volvo), General Motors, Honda 

(Acura), Hyundai, Kia, Lotus, Mazda, Mercedes, 

Mitsubishi, Nissan (Infiniti), Porsche, Subaru, 

Suzuki, Tata (Jaguar and Land Rover), Tesla, Toyota 

(Lexus), and Volkswagen/Audi. 

66Limited line manufacturer means a 

manufacturer that sells three or fewer carlines, as 

that term is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the United 

States during a production year. 67Small-volume manufacturer as defined in 

§ 571.127, ‘‘Automatic emergency braking systems 

for light vehicles,’’ is an original vehicle 

manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United 

States. 

68The 2006 final rule promulgating 49 CFR part 

563 discussed preemption at length. See 71 FR 

50907, 51029 (Aug. 28, 2006). 

NAICS code 336211, Motor Vehicle 

Body Manufacturing, prescribes a small 

business size standard of 1,000 or fewer 

employees. NAICS code 336390, Other 

Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing, 

prescribes a small business size 

standard of 1,000 or fewer employees. 

Most motor vehicle manufacturers 

would not qualify as a small business. 

There are a number of vehicle 

manufacturers that are small businesses. 

This final rule will directly affect 20 

single stage motor vehicle 

manufacturers.65 None of these are 

qualified as a small business. However, 

NHTSA analyzed current small 

manufacturers, multistage 

manufacturers, and alterers that 

currently have part 563 compliant EDRs 

and found that 13 motor vehicle 

manufacturers affected by this 

rulemaking would qualify as small 

businesses. While these 13 motor 

vehicle manufacturers qualify as small 

businesses, none of them would be 

significantly affected by this rulemaking 

for several reasons. First, vehicles that 

contain EDRs are already required to 

comply with part 563. These small 

businesses generally adhere to original 

equipment manufacturers’ instructions 

in manufacturing modified and altered 

vehicles. Based on our knowledge, 

original equipment manufacturers do 

not permit a final stage manufacturer or 

alterer to modify or alter sophisticated 

devices such as air bags or EDRs. 

Therefore, multistage manufacturers and 

alterers will be able to rely on the 

certification and information provided 

by the original equipment manufacturer 

for EDRs 

This rule may require hardware 

changes and will require adjusting the 

recording time and sampling rate for up 

to seven pre-crash data elements. As 

previously stated, the agency believes 

some current or planned systems can 

accommodate these changes. 

Additionally, NHTSA believes the 

market for the vehicle products of the 13 

small vehicle manufacturers is highly 

inelastic, meaning that purchasers of 

their products are enticed by the desire 

to have a highly customized vehicle. 

Generally, under this circumstance, if 

any prices increase, the price of 

competitor’s models will also need to be 

raised by a similar amount, since all 

light vehicles must comply with the 

standards. Therefore, any reasonable 

price increase will not have any effect 

on sales of these vehicles. NHTSA also 

designed the final rule to provide two 

years of lead time before the 

implementation of this final rule. 

Limited line 66 and small-volume 

manufacturers 67 will only need to 

produce compliant EDRs on or after 

September 1, 2029. Manufacturers 

producing altered vehicles or vehicles 

in two or more stages will have one 

additional year, until September 1, 

2030, for compliance. This additional 

time provides any affected entities 

flexibility and ample time to make the 

necessary assessments to acquire a basis 

for certifying their vehicles’ compliance. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined this rule 

pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments, or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

this rule will not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant 

consultation with State and local 

officials or the preparation of a 

federalism summary impact statement. 

The rule does not have ‘‘substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can preempt in two 

ways. First, the National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an 

express preemption provision: When a 

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect 

under this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

by Congress that preempts any nonidentical State legislative and 

administrative law addressing the same 

aspect of performance. The express 

preemption provision described above 

is subject to a savings clause under 

which compliance with a motor vehicle 

safety standard prescribed under this 

chapter does not exempt a person from 

liability at common law. 49 U.S.C. 

30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, 

State common law tort causes of action 

against motor vehicle manufacturers 

that might otherwise be preempted by 

the express preemption provision are 

generally preserved. 

NHTSA rules can also preempt State 

law if complying with the FMVSS 

would render the motor vehicle 

manufacturers liable under State tort 

law. Because most NHTSA standards 

established by an FMVSS are minimum 

standards, a State common law tort 

cause of action that seeks to impose a 

higher standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers will generally not be 

preempted. If and when such a conflict 

does exist—for example, when the 

standard at issue is both a minimum 

and a maximum standard—the State 

common law tort cause of action is 

impliedly preempted. See Geier v. 

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 

861 (2000). 

Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 

and 12988, NHTSA has considered 

whether this rule could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. The agency’s ability to announce 

its conclusion regarding the preemptive 

effect of one of its rules reduces the 

likelihood that preemption will be an 

issue in any subsequent tort litigation. 

To this end, the agency has examined 

the nature (i.e., the language and 

structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this rule and finds that this 

rule, like many NHTSA rules, would 

prescribe only a minimum safety 

standard. As such, NHTSA does not 

intend this rule to preempt state tort law 

that would effectively impose a higher 

standard on motor vehicle 

manufacturers. Establishment of a 

higher standard by means of State tort 

law will not conflict with the minimum 

standard adopted here. Without any 

conflict, there could not be any implied 

preemption of a State common law tort 

cause of action. 

This final rule proposes technical 

amendments to an already existing 

regulation.68 When 49 CFR part 563 was 

promulgated in 2006, NHTSA explained 

its view that any state laws or 

regulations that prohibit the types of 

EDRs addressed by part 563 would 

create a conflict and therefore be 

preempted. As a result, regarding this 

final rule, NHTSA does not believe 

there are current state laws or 

regulations for EDRs that conflict with 

part 563 or with the overall minor 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102830 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

change to capture time proposed by this 

document. 

Further, the amendments required by 

this final rule are directed by the FAST 

Act, which directs NHTSA to conduct a 

study to determine the amount of time 

EDRs should capture and record data to 

provide sufficient information for crash 

investigators, and conduct a rulemaking 

based on this study to establish the 

appropriate recording period in part 

563. NHTSA conducted an EDR 

Duration Study and submitted a Report 

to Congress summarizing the results of 

this study in September 2018. This final 

rule fulfills the rulemaking mandated by 

the FAST Act. To the extent there are 

state laws with different capture times 

than that required by this final rule, 

Congress made the determination in the 

FAST Act that the capture time required 

by part 563 should be extended. NHTSA 

is issuing this final rule in accordance 

with that statutory mandate. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

When promulgating a regulation, 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that the agency must make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies 

in clear language the preemptive effect; 

(2) specifies in clear language the effect 

on existing Federal law or regulation, 

including all provisions repealed, 

circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or 

modified; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies in clear language 

the retroactive effect; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties may file 

suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship of 

regulations. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

rule is discussed above in connection 

with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further 

that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et. seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. NHTSA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule does not meet the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to be 

considered a major rule. The rule will 

be effective sixty days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation) 

Executive Order 13609, ‘‘Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation,’’ 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. 

The agency is currently participating 

in the negotiation and development of 

technical standards for Event Data 

Recorders in the United Nations 

Economic Commission for Europe 

(UNECE) World Forum for 

Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 

(WP.29). As a signatory member, 

NHTSA is obligated to initiate 

rulemaking to incorporate safety 

requirements and options specified in 

Global Technical Regulations (GTRs) if 

the U.S. votes in the affirmative to 

establish the GTR. No GTR for EDRs has 

been developed at this time. NHTSA has 

analyzed this rule under the policies 

and agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609 and has determined this 

rulemaking would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rule for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. In accordance with 49 CFR 

1.81, 42 U.S.C. 4336, and DOT NEPA 

Order 5610.1C, NHTSA has determined 

that this rule is categorically excluded 

pursuant to 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4) 

(planning and administrative activities, 

such as promulgation of rules, that do 

not involve or lead directly to 

construction). This rulemaking, which 

amends regulations regarding Event 

Data Records (EDRs) to extend the EDR 

recording period of timed data metrics 

from 5 seconds of pre-crash data at a 

frequency of 2Hz to 20 seconds of precrash data at a frequency of 10 Hz, is not 

anticipated to result in any 

environmental impacts, and there are no 

extraordinary circumstances present in 

connection with this rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. This final rule makes 

amendments that relate to an 

information collection that is subject to 

the PRA, but the amendments are not 

expected to increase the burden 

associated with the information 

collection. In compliance with the 

requirements of the PRA, NHTSA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on August 26, 2021 (86 FR 

47719), seeking public comment and 

providing a 60-day comment period. 

NHTSA followed up with a second 

notice, published on March 17, 2022 (87 

FR 15302), announcing that the agency 

was submitting the information 

collection request to OMB for approval. 

OMB approved the collection without 

change on September 29, 2022 (OMB 

Control No. 2127–0758). 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), ‘‘all Federal 

agencies and departments shall use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, using such technical 

standards as a means to carry out policy 

objectives or activities determined by 

the agencies and departments.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as 

SAE International (SAE). The NTTAA 

directs us to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when we decide not 

to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. The 

NTTAA requires agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in lieu of 

government-unique standards except 

where inconsistent with law or 

otherwise impractical. 

There are several consensus standards 

related to EDRs, most notably those 

standards published by SAE (J1698— 

Event Data Recorder) and the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) (Standard 1616, IEEE Standard 

for Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder). 

NHTSA carefully considered the 

consensus standards applicable to EDR 

data elements in establishing part 563. 

Consensus standards for recording time/ 

intervals, data sample rates, data 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102831 

retrieval, data reliability, data range, 

accuracy and precision, and EDR crash 

survivability were evaluated by NHTSA 

and adopted when appropriate. The 

FAST Act directed NHTSA to conduct 

a study to determine the amount of time 

EDRs should capture and record precrash data to provide sufficient 

information for crash investigators, and 

to conduct a rulemaking based on this 

study to establish the appropriate 

recording period in NHTSA’s EDR 

regulation. NHTSA conducted the EDR 

Duration Study and submitted a Report 

to Congress summarizing the results of 

this study in September 2018. This 

rulemaking exceeds the pre-crash data 

recording durations of the SAE and IEEE 

standards (i.e., SAE and IEEE 

recommend recording 8 seconds of precrash data) based upon the new 

information obtained from the EDR 

Duration Study. The results of the study 

on EDR recording duration suggest that 

the recommended recording duration by 

these standards would not capture the 

initiation of crash avoidance maneuvers. 

NHTSA declines to adopt the voluntary 

consensus standards for the pre-crash 

recording because such a decision 

would be inconsistent with the best 

available information to the agency and 

conflict with the outcome of a study 

required by the FAST Act. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

Public Law 104–4, requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted for inflation 

with base year of 1995). Adjusting this 

amount by the implicit gross domestic 

product price deflator for the year 2020 

results in $158 million (113.625/71.868 

= 1.581). Before promulgating a rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires the agency to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows the agency to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative if the agency publishes with 

the final rule an explanation of why that 

alternative was not adopted. 

This final rule would not result in 

expenditures by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector in excess of $158 million 

(in 2020 dollars) annually. As a result, 

the requirements of section 202 of the 

Act do not apply. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks,’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) applies to any proposed or 

final rule that: (1) is determined to be 

‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined 

in E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

NHTSA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

a rule meets both criteria, the agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the rule on children 

and explain why the rule is preferable 

to other potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the agency. This 

rulemaking is not subject to the 

Executive order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

E.O. 12866. 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 18, 2001) applies to any 

rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be 

significant as defined under E.O. 12866, 

and is likely to have a significantly 

adverse effect on the supply of, 

distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) 

that is designated by the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs as a significant 

energy action. This rulemaking is not 

subject to E.O. 13211. 

Privacy 

The E-Government Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 

2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires 

Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy 

Impact Assessment when they develop 

or procure new information technology 

involving the collection, maintenance, 

or dissemination of information in 

identifiable form or they make 

substantial changes to existing 

information technology that manages 

information in identifiable form. A PIA 

is an analysis of how information in 

identifiable form is collected, stored, 

protected, shared, and managed. The 

purpose of a PIA is to demonstrate that 

system owners and developers have 

incorporated privacy protections 

throughout the entire life cycle of a 

system. 

The Agency submitted a Privacy 

Threshold Analysis analyzing this 

rulemaking to the DOT, Office of the 

Secretary’s Privacy Office (DOT Privacy 

Office). The DOT Privacy Office has 

determined that this rulemaking does 

not create privacy risk because no new 

or substantially changed technology 

would collect, maintain, or disseminate 

information in an identifiable form 

because of this rule. NHTSA also notes 

that the Driver Privacy Act of 2015 

assigns ownership of EDR data to the 

vehicle owner, provides limitations on 

data retrieval from EDR data, and 

generally prohibits access to EDR data 

with specific exceptions to this general 

rule. 

Plain Language Requirement 

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to 

write all rules in plain language. 

Application of the principles of plain 

language includes consideration of the 

following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

NHTSA has considered these 

questions and attempted to use plain 

language in promulgating this final rule. 

If readers have suggestions on how we 

can improve our use of plain language, 

please write us. 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 563 

Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 563 as 

follows: 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102832 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 563—EVENT DATA 

RECORDERS 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

563 to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30101, 30111, 

30115, 30117, 30166, 30168; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. Add definitions for ‘‘Limited-line 

manufacturer’’ and ‘‘Small-volume 

manufacturer’’ in alphabetical order to 

§ 563.5(b) to read as follows: 

§ 563.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

Limited-line manufacturer means a 

manufacturer that sells three or fewer 

carlines, as that term is defined in 49 

CFR 583.4, in the United States during 

a production year. 

* * * * * 

Small-volume manufacturer means an 

original vehicle manufacturer that 

produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 

vehicles annually for sale in the United 

States. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 563.7 to read as follows: 

§ 563.7 Data elements. 

(a) Data elements required for all 

vehicles. Each vehicle equipped with an 

EDR must record all of the data 

elements listed in table I to § 563.7(a), 

during the interval/time and at the 

sample rate specified in that table. 

TABLE I TO § 563.7(a)—DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR ALL VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH AN EDR 

Data element Recording interval/time 1

(relative to time zero) 

Data 

sample rate 

(samples per 

second) 

Delta-V, longitudinal .................................................................... 0 to 250 ms or 0 to End of Event Time plus 30 ms, whichever 

is shorter.

100 

Maximum delta-V, longitudinal .................................................... 0–300 ms or 0 to End of Event Time plus 30 ms, whichever is 

shorter.

N/A 

Time, maximum delta-V .............................................................. 0–300 ms or 0 to End of Event Time plus 30 ms, whichever is 

shorter.

N/A 

Speed, vehicle indicated ............................................................. ¥20.0 to 0 sec 4 ........................................................................ 4 10 

Engine throttle, % full (or accelerator pedal, % full) ................... ¥20.0 to 0 sec 4 ........................................................................ 4 10 

Service brake, on/off ................................................................... ¥20.0 to 0 sec 4 ........................................................................ 4 10 

Ignition cycle, crash .................................................................... ¥1.0 sec .................................................................................... N/A 

Ignition cycle, download .............................................................. At time of download 3 ................................................................. N/A 

Safety belt status, driver ............................................................. ¥1.0 sec .................................................................................... N/A 

Frontal air bag warning lamp, on/off 2 ......................................... ¥1.0 sec .................................................................................... N/A 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to deploy, in the case of a 

single stage air bag, or time to first stage deployment, in the 

case of a multi-stage air bag, driver.

Event .......................................................................................... N/A 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to deploy, in the case of a 

single stage air bag, or time to first stage deployment, in the 

case of a multi-stage air bag, right front passenger.

Event .......................................................................................... N/A 

Multi-event, number of event ...................................................... Event .......................................................................................... N/A 

Time from event 1 to 2 ............................................................... As needed .................................................................................. N/A 

Complete file recorded (yes, no) ................................................ Following other data .................................................................. N/A 

1Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is ¥0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T = ¥1 

would need to occur between ¥1.1 and 0 seconds.) 2The frontal air bag warning lamp is the readiness indicator specified in S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 208, and may also illuminate to indicate a malfunction in another part of the deployable restraint system. 3The ignition cycle at the time of download is not required to be recorded at the time of the crash, but shall be reported during the download 

process. 4For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2027, the required recording interval is ¥5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required 

data sample rate is 2 samples per second. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2029 by small-volume manufacturers and limited-line 

manufacturers, the required recording interval is ¥5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. 

For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2030 by manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two or more stages, the required recording interval is ¥5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. 

(b) Data elements required for 

vehicles under specified conditions. 

Each vehicle equipped with an EDR 

must record each of the data elements 

listed in column 1 of table II to 

§ 563.7(b) for which the vehicle meets 

the condition specified in column 2 of 

that table, during the interval/time and 

at the sample rate specified in that table. 

TABLE II TO § 563.7(b)—DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR VEHICLES UNDER SPECIFIED MINIMUM CONDITIONS

Data element name Condition for requirement Recording interval/time 1

(relative to time zero) 

Data 

sample rate 

(per second) 

Lateral acceleration ....................... If recorded 2 .................................. N/A ................................................ N/A 

Longitudinal acceleration ............... If recorded .................................... N/A ................................................ N/A 

Normal acceleration ....................... If recorded .................................... N/A ................................................ N/A 

Delta-V, lateral ............................... If recorded .................................... 0–250 ms or 0 to End of Event 

Time plus 30 ms, whichever is 

shorter.

100 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 102833 

TABLE II TO § 563.7(b)—DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR VEHICLES UNDER SPECIFIED MINIMUM CONDITIONS—Continued 

Data element name Condition for requirement Recording interval/time 1

(relative to time zero) 

Data 

sample rate 

(per second) 

Maximum delta-V, lateral ............... If recorded .................................... 0–300 ms or 0 to End of Event 

Time plus 30 ms, whichever is 

shorter.

N/A 

Time maximum delta-V, lateral ...... If recorded .................................... 0–300 ms or 0 to End of Event 

Time plus 30 ms, whichever is 

shorter.

N/A 

Time for maximum delta-V, resultant.If recorded .................................... 0–300 ms or 0 to End of Event 

Time plus 30 ms, whichever is 

shorter.

N/A 

Engine rpm .................................... If recorded .................................... ¥20.0 to 0 sec 5 ........................... 5 10 

Vehicle roll angle ........................... If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 up to 5.0 sec 3 ..................... 10 

ABS activity (engaged, non-engaged).If recorded .................................... ¥20.0 to 0 sec 5 ........................... 5 10 

Stability control (on, off, or engaged).If recorded .................................... ¥20.0 to 0 sec 5 ........................... 5 10 

Steering input ................................. If recorded .................................... ¥20.0 to 0 sec 5 ........................... 5 10 

Safety belt status, right front passenger (buckled, not buckled).If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Frontal air bag suppression switch 

status, right front passenger (on, 

off, or auto).

If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to 

nth stage, driver 4.

If equipped with a driver’s frontal 

air bag with a multi-stage inflator.

Event ............................................. N/A 

Frontal air bag deployment, time to 

nth stage, right front passenger 4.

If equipped with a right front passenger’s frontal air bag with a 

multi-stage inflator.

Event ............................................. N/A 

Frontal air bag deployment, nth 

stage disposal, driver, Y/N 

(whether the nth stage deployment was for occupant restraint 

or propellant disposal purposes).

If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Frontal air bag deployment, nth 

stage disposal, right front passenger, Y/N (whether the nth 

stage deployment was for occupant restraint or propellant disposal purposes).

If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Side air bag deployment, time to 

deploy, driver.

If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Side air bag deployment, time to 

deploy, right front passenger.

If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, time to deploy, driver side.If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Side curtain/tube air bag deployment, time to deploy, right side.If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Pretensioner deployment, time to 

fire, driver.

If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Pretensioner deployment, time to 

fire, right front passenger.

If recorded .................................... Event ............................................. N/A 

Seat track position switch, foremost, status, driver.If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Seat track position switch, foremost, status, right front passenger.If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Occupant size classification, driver If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Occupant size classification, right 

front passenger.

If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Occupant position classification, 

driver.

If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

Occupant position classification, 

right front passenger.

If recorded .................................... ¥1.0 sec ...................................... N/A 

1Pre-crash data and crash data are asynchronous. The sample time accuracy requirement for pre-crash time is ¥0.1 to 1.0 sec (e.g., T = ¥1 

would need to occur between ¥1.1 and 0 seconds.) 2 ‘‘If recorded’’ means if the data is recorded in non-volatile memory for the purpose of subsequent downloading. 

3 ‘‘Vehicle roll angle’’ may be recorded in any time duration; ¥1.0 sec to 5.0 sec is suggested. 4 List this element n¥1 times, once for each stage of a multi-stage air bag system. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
102834 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

5For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2027, the required recording interval is ¥5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required 

data sample rate is 2 samples per second. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2029 by small-volume manufacturers and limited-line 

manufacturers, the required recording interval is ¥5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. 

For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2030 by manufacturers producing altered vehicles or vehicles in two or more stages, the required recording interval is ¥5.0 to 0 sec relative to time zero and the required data sample rate is 2 samples per second. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501. 

Adam Raviv, 

Chief Counsel. 

[Final Rule, RIN 2127–AM12, 49 CFR 

part 563 Event Data Recorders] 

[FR Doc. 2024–29862 Filed 12–17–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 241212–0325] 

RIN 0648–BN01 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Framework Adjustment 15 to 

the Monkfish Fishery Management 

Plan; Framework Adjustment 6 to the 

Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing 

regulations for Framework Adjustment 

15 to the Monkfish Fishery Management 

Plan/Framework Adjustment 6 to the 

Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management 

Plan, which the New England and MidAtlantic Fishery Management Councils 

jointly recommended and NMFS 

approved. This action establishes areabased gear requirements for vessels 

fishing with gillnets in the monkfish 

fishery, starting on January 1, 2026, and 

for vessels fishing with gillnets in the 

spiny dogfish fishery starting on May 1, 

2025. This action is necessary to 

minimize bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon 

in the monkfish and spiny dogfish 

fisheries to the extent practicable and 

fulfill requirements of the Biological 

Opinion on Ten Fishery Management 

Plans in the Greater Atlantic Region and 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council’s Omnibus Habitat Amendment 

2. 

DATES: Effective May 1, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Framework 

15/Framework 6 document, including 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

and other supporting documents for the 

measures, are available from Dr. Cate 

O’Keefe, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, 

MA 01950 and Dr. Christopher M. 

Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, 800 North 

State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. 

The Framework 15/Framework 6 

document is also accessible via the 

internet at: https://www.nefmc.org/ 

management-plans/monkfish or https:// 

www.mafmc.org/dogfish. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Spencer Talmage, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9232. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council (New England 

Council) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Mid-Atlantic 

Council) (collectively, the Councils) 

jointly manage both the Monkfish and 

Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management 

Plans (FMP). The New England Council 

is the administrative lead for the 

Monkfish FMP, while the Mid-Atlantic 

Council is the lead for the Dogfish FMP. 

NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on 

May 27, 2021, that considered the 

effects of the authorization of two 

interstate fishery management plans 

(ISFMP) and eight Federal FMPs, 

including the Monkfish and Spiny 

Dogfish FMPs, on Endangered Species 

Act (ESA)-listed species and designated 

critical habitat through a formal Section 

7 consultation. The Biological Opinion 

determined that NMFS’s authorization 

of the eight FMPs and two ISFMPs may 

adversely affect, but is not likely to 

jeopardize, Atlantic sturgeon. The 

Biological Opinion included an 

Incidental Take Statement and 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

(RPM) with accompanying Terms and 

Conditions to minimize the impacts of 

incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon. The 

RPMs required that NMFS convene a 

working group to review all of the 

available information on Atlantic 

sturgeon bycatch in the federally 

permitted large-mesh gillnet fisheries 

and, by May 27, 2022, develop an 

Action Plan to reduce Atlantic sturgeon 

bycatch in these fisheries by 2024. 

NMFS initially issued the Action Plan 

on May 26, 2022, and revised it on 

September 26, 2022, to incorporate 

feedback from the Councils and public. 

The Councils subsequently developed 

this joint framework action—Framework 

15 to the Monkfish FMP and Framework 

6 to the Dogfish FMP—to address the 

recommendations of the Action Plan 

and fulfill the requirements of the 

Biological Opinion. 

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, we 

approve, disapprove, or partially 

approve measures that the Councils 

propose, based on consistency with the 

Act and other applicable law. We 

review proposed regulations for 

consistency with the FMP, plan 

amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and other applicable law, and publish 

the proposed regulations, solicit public 

comment, and promulgate the final 

regulations. We have approved all of the 

measures in this joint framework action 

recommended by the Councils, as 

described below. The measures 

implemented in this final rule: 

• Require vessels fishing on a 

monkfish day-at-sea (DAS) within the 

New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch 

Reduction Area to use low-profile 

gillnet gear, beginning on January 1, 

2026; 

• Prohibit dogfish vessels fishing in 

the New Jersey Atlantic Sturgeon 

Bycatch Reduction Area from leaving 

gillnet gear in the water overnight 

during the months of May and 

November, effective May 1, 2025; and 

• Prohibit dogfish vessels fishing in 

the Delaware and Maryland Atlantic 

Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction Area and 

Virginia Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch 

Reduction Area from leaving gillnet gear 

in the water overnight from November 

through March, effective May 1, 2025. 

Approved Measures 

1. Low-Profile Gillnet Gear 

The regulations implemented by this 

final rule require vessels fishing on a 

Monkfish DAS within the New Jersey 

Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch Reduction 

Area that are using large mesh (i.e., 

greater than or equal to 10 inches (25.4 

centimeters (cm)) to use low-profile 

gillnet gear, beginning on January 1, 

2026. Low-profile gillnet gear is defined 

in this final rule as having: 

• Mesh size ranging from 12 to 13 

inches (30.48 to 33.02 cm); 

• Net height ranging from 6 to 8 

meshes tall; 

• Net length of 300 feet (91.44 meters 

(m)); 

• Tie-down length of less than or 

equal to 30 inches (76.2 cm); 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES